Produced by Charlene Taylor, Bryan Ness and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)










[Illustration: FRANCIS GUENON.]




                           HOW TO SELECT COWS;
                                   OR
                            THE GUENON SYSTEM
             SIMPLIFIED, EXPLAINED, AND PRACTICALLY APPLIED.

                                   BY
                            WILLIS P. HAZARD,
       _Secretary of the Pennsylvania Guenon Commission; President
        of the Chad’s Ford Farmers’ Club; a Vice-President of the
      American Dairyman’s Association; Lecturer upon Agriculture at
      the Delaware State College, &c., &c.; Author of Treatises “On
       the Jersey, Guernsey, and Alderney Cow,” and “On Butter and
           Butter-making;” “The Annals of Philadelphia,” &c._

                             [Illustration]

                      WITH NEARLY 100 ILLUSTRATIONS
                _Photographed from Guenon’s engravings._

                              PHILADELPHIA:
               J. M. STODDART & CO., 1018 Chestnut Street.
                                  1882

                               COPYRIGHTED
                      ACCORDING TO ACT OF CONGRESS
                                  1879.




PREFACE.


The want has long been felt for a hand book which would simplify and
explain the invaluable discovery of Guenon, to enable any one to select
good stock. There can be no doubt if this discovery is made to be easily
acquired, that millions of dollars would be saved to the community by the
improvement of herds and a consequent reduction in the price of bovine
products, on account of the increased yield and the lower cost of raising
it.

The State of Pennsylvania, in 1878, appointed a commission to test the
system and report upon it. As a member of that commission, we found
there was with many a superficial knowledge of the subject, with others
enough acquaintance with the system to destroy their faith in it, and
with nearly all a desire to obtain sufficient practical knowledge of the
system to enable them to judge understandingly and to practice it.

With a view to fill these wants, we have undertaken the explanation
of the system in the following pages to enable all to fill up their
measure of knowledge of the system, so that the superficial shall become
thorough, the doubting acquire new faith, and all see its merits _the
more they practice and apply it_.

We have accordingly given a sketch of M. Guenon and the progress of
his discovery; some extracts from his preface explaining his views; an
explanation of his system of escutcheon marks; a description of the
various escutcheons and their indications of value and quantity, and
directions how to practically apply them, together with the report of the
Pennsylvania Guenon Commission.

Believing that we have thus presented a comprehensive view of this
discovery, we trust every one into whose hands this work may come, will
patiently, book in hand, go into the farm-yard and judge of the value
of his stock by the rules here set forth, compare the results with his
individual knowledge of his stock, and fairly estimate the value of the
system.

The illustrations of the escutcheons are photographed from Guenon’s
drawings in his last revised edition.

                                                        WILLIS P. HAZARD.

MAPLE KNOLL, WEST CHESTER, PA., _September, 1879_.




LECTURES ON THE GUENON SYSTEM.


The author of this work having been invited to lecture a number of
times before agricultural societies, and being constantly in receipt
of letters of inquiry about repeating his lectures, takes this public
opportunity to announce that he will make arrangements to repeat his
lecture on the Guenon system, illustrated with a series of large
drawings. Correspondence is solicited with officers of agricultural
societies, granges, agricultural fairs, colleges, farmers’ clubs, and
dairymen’s associations. His principal object being to disseminate widely
a knowledge of a system of such great value to his brother farmers, the
terms will be satisfactory.

At each lecture practical illustrations and instruction is given in the
barn-yard or field. Address him at

    WEST CHESTER,
    CHESTER COUNTY,
    PENNSYLVANIA.


LECTURE UPON THE CHANNEL ISLANDS, THEIR PEOPLE, AND THE CATTLE.

The author having recently spent several months in Guernsey and Jersey
for the purpose of studying the habits of the people, viewing the
scenery, and acquiring a knowledge of the agriculture, and the breeding
of their cattle, has embodied the results of his visits in a lecture,
which he is now prepared to deliver before agricultural and other
associations.


LECTURES UPON AGRICULTURE.

The author having been appointed Lecturer upon Agriculture to the
Delaware State College, at Newark, Del., will repeat all or part of the
course to farmers’ institutes, colleges, schools, &c. The lectures are
popular in character, and not too scientific for general comprehension.




GUENON’S INTRODUCTION TO HIS NEW REVISED EDITION.


Error is propagated with the rapidity of lightning; before it every
obstacle disappears, and popular favor seems to welcome it. Truth, on
the contrary, is received with indifference, often even with doubt,
suspicion, and distrust. Indeed, how often have we not seen the author
of a discovery which, having been accepted and realized ought to have
advanced the public good and increased the general welfare, come into
contact with the hatred, the ignorance, and the envy, and thus become
the laughter of fools and the jest of the wise. To some the inventor
seemed without good sense; to others an ignoramus. Too feeble to struggle
against all, he died broken hearted, and left to his powerful antagonists
the glory of having, perhaps for ages, buried his discovery, and to those
who bring to perfection cities and fields the deprivation of a good up to
that time unknown.

If more happy than those martyrs for a new idea, I should reach, at last,
that which concerns me, after twelve years of incessant struggles, to
cause the truth to appear to the eyes of all, I should have nothing more
to desire. Nothing would remain for me, except to bless the generous
hearts which shall have aided me in triumphing over routine and error;
then on quitting this world, only to bequeath the worthy men who have
so bravely encouraged and seconded my efforts, the task of simplifying
my discovery, and rendering my method popular to cause the analytical
knowledge of cattle to penetrate even into the most obscure hamlet, and
while dividing thus with me the glory of having done this good, their
names will be held in grateful remembrance by future generations; such
has been the idea which has guided every moment of my life, all the
efforts of my mind.

For nearly twelve years, since I have given my method to the public,
through a first edition of my “Treatise on Milch Cows,” the savants and
the practitioners have been greatly prepossessed with it. When they have
seen me make a successful application before them of my system, by a
single inspection of animals which I saw for the first time, they have
expressed a lively surprise.

In the vegetable kingdom, skillful nurserymen have distinguished more
than eighty different orders of pears of summer, of autumn, and of
winter; each of these orders has its distinctive characteristics, as many
for the shape and the taste of the fruit, as for the time of ripening.
And when a tree-grower or an amateur is sufficiently skillful, he
distinguishes marvelously all these species one from another by a single
inspection, and at whatever time of year it may be. He knows equally well
what exposure it is necessary to give to each of them to obtain exquisite
fruits.

My first studies had been directed toward arboriculture. I have practiced
with my father during many years. My principal occupation was the cutting
of trees, grafts, both splits and bandages, and by studying vegetables, I
had acquired the idea of and an insight into classifications.

I was better prepared thus for my work of classifying the bovine race, a
work which no one had ever tried, either theoretically or practically.

My classification of the characteristic signs, embraces all the races of
France and other countries, without distinction of sex or age.

Unknown, up to this day, although they have always existed, these signs
have escaped all the world, even the sagacity of the most celebrated
painters, as well as that of veterinary doctors of the highest
reputations of all times.

The appearance of my method should mark an era, for it opposes and
overturns all the prejudiced routines according to which people have
practiced up to this time.

It opens a new era in an art in its infancy, in a science whose first
principles even were unknown. I should then expound it with the greatest
detail.

This method is of the greatest simplicity, whatever has been possible
to be said of it, and whoever will become thoroughly familiar with the
escutcheon of the first order of each class, will be able to judge of all.

Escutcheons are ten in number. They extend, according to their class,
from the centre of the four teats to the level of the upper extremity
of the vulva, and may extend in breadth from the middle of the hinder
surface of one leg, to the middle of the hinder surface of the other. By
their form or configuration, escutcheons characterize and distinguish the
ten families which together constitute my classification. Behold, then,
to what is reduced, in reality, this pretended immense complication.

A special figure, placed at the end of each class, serves to indicate
mongrel animals.

Each of the _classes_ or families is characterized by an escutcheon of
fixed form, always similar to itself, while one does not get out of that
class or that family, but variable in the dimensions of its surface. That
dimension or that surface should be estimated by square centimeters, but
that would be too complicated for the practical man; since it depends
on the size of the individual, it is estimated by the limits of the
escutcheon placed on the hinder part of the animal. The extreme limits
are the hams, the interior surface of the legs and vulva. The surface of
the escutcheon, of which the extent varies, has permitted me to divide
each class or family into _six orders_, for each one of which I assign,
in taking account of the shape, the quantity, the continuation, and the
quality of the milk.

The escutcheon of the first order is the most developed; is also
the best marked. The escutcheon of each of the five other orders is
similar in form to that of the first order. It is, in some sort, only
a proportionate reduction—a diminutive. It is the escutcheon of the
first order, with the dimensions reduced or brought within less extended
limits, reaching no longer the hock nor longer covering the interior of
the thighs, nor yet reaching up to the vulva, remaining consequently at a
distance greater or less from these boundaries.

I have added to this new edition—

    1st. Two new classes, sub-divided also into six orders, (the
    Left Flanders and the Double Selvage.)

    2d. Two varieties of escutcheons, having some similarity with
    the others.

    3d. Finally, the classification of the bull.

These three additions, unpublished until now, complete and generalize the
system of characteristic signs, by which one can prove the absolute and
relative superiority or inferiority of each individual of the race.

These new forms of escutcheons were known to me at the time of the
publication of my first issue, and which I had already announced; but
they occurred so rarely in the races which were familiar to me, that I
thought they were not worth publishing.

But, now, since I have traveled so much, not only in France, but in
foreign countries, I have convinced myself that these classes occur much
more commonly in certain races than I had thought at first. I have felt
the necessity of putting them in my method, and have given them their
proper place.

In respect to the two new varieties of escutcheons, they are like an
appendix to the classification, and characterize the product of crossing
between different classes.

To state precisely their signification and to value their corresponding
milk product, it is necessary to compare these escutcheons with the order
of the class to which they are the most analogous.

When I shall have described the different families of true cows, as well
as their division into orders, the yield or the quantity of milk, their
butyraceous qualities, and the greater or less period of its duration of
yield during gestation, I will pass to the bastard cows, which, though
perfectly similar in form and color to others, differ essentially from
them, for they lose their milk as soon as they are pregnant.

This close resemblance is a source of errors to the most practiced judges.

Thus have I wished in the description of classification, to point out
precisely the distinctive signs by the aid of which one can easily
recognize them. After the study of bastard cows, comes the chapter of
bull re-productors. I have made plain, that in the classifications
of bulls, I have reduced to three the numbers of orders of each
class, in order to bring the application of the method to the most
simple expression. The first will comprehend all the bulls, the good
re-producers; the second, the re-producers of middling quality; the
third, the bad re-producers. I mean by bad, those in which fails the
ability for the transmission of the lactiferous qualities. As one sees,
the characteristic signs with the males, as with the females, have a
significant value of the highest importance. With the bull, they portray
the re-productive qualities, and with the cows the lactiferous qualities.
The observers who will apply my system of one kind, as rigorously for
the males as for the females, will observe in the passage of one order
to the other, the same scale of proportion that this established in
the classification of the cows. Although the classification bears more
on the lactiferous or re-productive properties than on the others, it
is important to take in consideration all the other qualities that
the individuals can and ought to possess to be of an irreproachable
organization.

The cows of the first and second order of each class, in all the races,
will always give in the same country, a greater abundance of milk than
those of inferior orders. To recognize the lactiferous produce of cows,
whatever may be their class or the locality that they inhabit, it
suffices simply to know the quality of the food which makes the habitual
nourishment of the cows in the place where they are kept.

In following in his appreciation, the degree of superiority or of
inferiority of the escutcheon, one will judge close upon the daily
quantity of milk that all the cows of the same country are apt to
give, for one will know then in what proportion all the figures of the
classification should be modified. A milk cow ought to be neither too fat
nor too lean, to give her maximum of milk. All confinements in a period
of thinness is prejudicial to the habitual produce. Even when the animal
would have recovered her strength, she will not recuperate so as to
restore the quantity of her milk; that can take place only after a year,
and by means of a new calf. A great milk cow, whatever may be her aptness
for fattening, and her condition of fat at the time of calving, becomes
thin about fifteen or twenty days after calving; the time of her rut
is therefore less near than that of a poor milk cow, because her vital
forces are weaker. Witness the quantity of her yield, which is only that
of a cow of medium product.

One can compare a milch cow to a fruit tree, which gives more fruit
this year than the next. When the sap of the tree carries vigor to
the development of the fruit, the growth of the wood remains nearly
stationary. When, on the contrary, the tree gives but little fruit, the
sap turns to the profit of the wood, to give, after a repose of several
years, a greater quantity of fruit, and to continue thus by alternative
successions.

It is the same with the cow, for it is seldom that her produce keeps
the same during three consecutive years, for the reason that, when the
nourishment absorbed by her turns to the profit of the milk, the milk is
more abundant; when, on the contrary, the nourishment goes to fat, the
milk diminishes.

The variations in the milk quantity should be justly attributed to the
influence of atmospheric circumstances of the seasons, which react on
the quality of hay and fodder in augmenting or diminishing the nutritive
juices of the food.

Cows which are fed in good pastures surpass the product which I have
assigned to their class and their order, while those which are in poor
and wet pastures have necessarily inferior produce, unless the latter
have in the stable nourishing food, more abundant and more succulent than
they are able to get for themselves out of doors.

If, for example, the well-fed cows, or those grazing on rich pasture
lands, should give as much as twenty to twenty-five quarts of milk per
day; these same cows, taken and fed on poor pasture, will give only about
ten or twelve quarts.

If, on the contrary, one takes the cows raised on a poor soil, transfers
them to rich pastures, the milk produce of these same cows will be
superior to that they gave in their original lands.

My readers should well understand that in the valuations of my
classifications that I have not pretended to assign a rigorous and
absolute amount. I have been only able to give an approximate figure to
each class and to each order, adopting the medium limit of the ordinary
amount of the different breeds of various localities.

The atmosphere, the care, and the different foods of each country, all
these different things exercise upon the animal, an influence favorable
or unfavorable, according to the nature of the soil.

There are many other circumstances which should be considered, and which
would disturb the harmony of the figures of my valuation and the normal
quantity. Such are, for example, the case of sickness, accidents, &c.
That is the reason I have adopted, in determining the quantity of cows of
each order, a medium figure, such as is shown in the classification.

I will also observe, relative to those animals to which I assign
approximate weight in the course of this work, that, following the
customs of commerce, of sale, and of butchers, this weight is dead
weight, the animal being deprived of the skin, intestines, head, feet, &c.

If, contrary to custom, I had acted otherwise, and had made the
calculation 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.

The discovery which I have made of the value of the escutcheon is
designated by the contrary direction of the hair, and which had escaped
the attention of every one, even those most interested in gaining the
knowledge of it. It is necessary also to avow the effect produced by
the change of direction of the hair is not glaring on the animal. It
is merely a difference of luster, and the gloss on the surface of the
escutcheon and the part of the skin surrounding it. The hair of the
escutcheon is finer, shorter, more furry, and more silky. Its appearance,
at the first glance, makes one think this part of the animal has been
shaved. Compared with the ordinary hair, the skin of the udder appears
to be more designed to be quicker seen on the part where appears the
escutcheon.

All animals of the bovine species, without excepting even wild animals,
are marked with an escutcheon, large, small, or medium, regular or
irregular. Their characteristic sign is transmitted with the generating
germ.

I have not thought it necessary to say much on that portion of the
escutcheon which extends on the stomach of the beast towards the navel.
This addition has been thought useless. Enough is shown of the escutcheon
when she is standing.

In order to see well the escutcheons with all the fullness which my
sketches give them, it must be supposed that the udder of each cow is
seen at its greatest plenitude of milk, such as would separate the hind
legs to the greatest extent. In this way the escutcheon is seen as if
the entire skin of the animal was placed flat, or as if the envelope of
the milk bearing apparatus formed a plain surface, on which are drawn
the elevations, the depressions, and all that is not visible to the eye,
without the aid of hands or of movement of the cow, both that which is
hidden at the further side and in the folds of the udder and of the
thighs of the animal on foot.

In order to examine and to distinguish perfectly the escutcheon, one
should place himself behind the animal and make it advance some steps, in
such manner that the movements which it makes in walking should show, one
after another, the parts which one needs to see.

One can also, in passing the nails over the space occupied by the
escutcheon and leading the hand downward from above, in a manner contrary
to the rising hair, and ruffling it, recognize without difficulty its
form and its extent.

Theoretical explanations are always abstract and diffuse in their
development. My method may at first appear difficult and complicated,
which, indeed, pretended savans have chosen to affirm. Nevertheless it is
not so, and in order to comprehend it, it is sufficient to study it. It
is with this as with everything else, to know it is necessary to study
and to practice.

The beautiful art which I am about to explain to agriculturists is most
easily acquired. Its technical dictionary is composed only of certain
words, of which the readers should, first of all, know perfectly the
precise signification.

These words are _Escutcheons, Epis or Tufts ascending_, and _Epis or
Tufts_ descending. After he knows perfectly the different forms and the
importance of these characteristic signs, he will know the whole subject
as well as I do myself.

The Epis or Tuft, as one will see, participates with the escutcheon
in the distinction of the orders—it multiplies the sub-divisions. It
seems at the same time to complicate my method and to render it less
accessible; but I have not felt myself at liberty to omit it, since it
has an incontestible and important value.

If, among certain animals, the form and extent of characteristic signs
are not exactly those of the drawings, but a sort of intermediate
between the characteristic signs of two classes, he who applies the
method should approximate them to the drawing of the classification from
which they differ the least, and from that deduce the probable value.

To render my work perfectly clear, I had to enter into the developments
very much in detail. Nevertheless, so extensive are these details that
I believe I have given neither too many nor too few, and have confined
myself simply within the limits of the possible, the indispensible and
the useful.

And now, whoever my opponents may be, I proclaim boldly and without fear,
that the escutcheon is the only incontestible characteristic sign that
can enable one to discern, by simple inspection, the aptitude for milk
production of each animal.

All animals of the bovine species in good state of health, to which no
accident has happened, and whose escutcheons are of the first orders of
each class, will manifest always, and without exception, as much for the
production of milk as for generative ability.

Beauty of form, to my thinking, represents but an ideal, and although one
ought to take it into consideration, it is a simple accessory without
value of its own, when the question is that of the production of milk.

May I have been able to justify by this work the fruit of the experience
of my whole life, the honor done me by many agricultural societies in
admitting me to their membership, and by the government which has shared
the expense of this new edition, with the twofold purpose of encouraging
my efforts and facilitating the propagation of my method.




GUENON’S METHOD OF JUDGING OF THE VALUE OF STOCK.


Fifty years ago there was dawning upon the world the first ray of a great
discovery. A star was rising in the agricultural world, which was about
to shed new light, and like many other valuable discoveries, it was made
by one among the lowly, and partly by chance. The author of this new
discovery has said, “Error flies with the rapidity of lightning, all
obstacles vanish before it. Truth, on the contrary, is admitted coldly,
often even with doubt, suspicion, and distrust.” It is owing partly to
this, partly to the fact that this new light was given to the world when
the mind of farmers were not ready to _receive_ new ideas of progress as
they now seek them, and much to the fact that it was the invention of a
foreigner described in a foreign tongue. True a translation of it was
made through the medium of an American monthly magazine of agriculture;
but it was one of limited circulation. At that time the number of
periodicals devoted to that interest was few, and such new and important
questions were not thoroughly discussed and the knowledge of them placed
in every farm-house in the land, as it is at the present day. Shortly
after the appearance of M. Guenon’s treatise in the magazine, it was
reprinted in book form, and received the large circulation of sixty-five
thousand copies, between that time and now, and the book most probably
sells better to-day than it did then. By many who procured that book the
subject was studied, and advantage taken of its revelations, being stored
away in the reader’s mind for actual practice. By the great majority it
was read, but not studied; driven from it by the apparent complications
of the system and the two hundred sub-divisions of it; by many, perhaps,
it was attempted to be put into practice, but without their having
given the subject that close investigation which was needed to prove
the system correct. It was mostly by this class of persons, because the
system was not found to be infallible, that it was denounced and given
up, even by men otherwise intelligent; as if anything human could be
infallible. Thus it is that by the ignorant its revelations were received
with incredulity, and by many of the intelligent with doubt; but to the
earnest seekers after practical information, it has unfolded a mine of
wealth, and they have proved the system by continuous experience, and
found it to be the most reliable mode of judging of the value of every
member of the bovine species.

It was a happy thought that suggested itself to the Pennsylvania State
Board of Agriculture, to have the system tested by uninterested parties.
But extremely difficult, it was, to obtain persons to make the test.
For those to whom application was made declined it on various grounds,
principally because, as Guenon himself has stated in his latest edition,
many pretended savans would endeavor to throw ridicule upon it; many
others would identify the gentlemen making the tests with it, as if it
was their system that they were testing; while not a few still more
narrow-minded, would think they were trying to humbug them. Thus it was
difficult to fill the places, which offered neither honor nor profit.

It will be seen, by these extracts, that the Governor appointed three
experts to test the system. This they did in the summer of 1878,
examining two hundred cows, jotting down their opinion of the yield,
quality, and time of each of them, and afterwards printing them alongside
of the reports of their owners, so that the public could form their own
estimate of the results of the examinations of the commission. They are
here reprinted, to show how it was carried out. Particular attention is
called to the examinations _of the blanketed cows_ in Thomas Gawthrop’s
herd.


On M. Guenon and his System.

It is proper we should inquire into M. Guenon, and the origin and
development of his system.

Monsieur François Guenon, a husbandman of Libourne, in France, was the
son of a gardener, and followed for sometime his ancestor’s trade.
He seems to have had a mind above those in his position. As we look
at his portrait, he appears to have a clear eye, a cool head, great
determination, firmness of character, a well-balanced mind, and with
it all, a vigor of constitution which buoys him up, and enables him to
over-ride obstacles. He says himself, he was of an observant turn of
mind, fond of comparing things, and deducing consequences from what he
learned by observation and comparison, particularly from the Book of
Nature. Young, ardent and healthy, with the vivacity of his race, he felt
himself destined for better things than those a gardener’s life would
insure him. What wonder then that his eye was keen to see, his mind to
grasp and analyze any new turn of thought that chance might throw in his
way.

Like most self-made men, who have made their mark in life’s pilgrimage,
he set himself to work to improve himself—to acquire that which would
expand his mind, and fit it to receive any new inspiration, and be
able to develop it. He studied the works of the best writers on botany
and agriculture; and applied his knowledge by following up all the
ramifications of the vegetable kingdom, and studied their external signs,
that distinguish the different sorts, and ascertained their qualities and
productiveness.

In France, they have few fences, and the cattle of a neighborhood are
driven to the grazing ground, and herded together, and, in turn, members
of each or several families, (the younger portion,) are put to watch that
the cattle do not stray out of bounds. Such companionship with their
stock makes the owners fond of them, and they are treated as pets, and
become very docile. When young Guenon was about fourteen years of age, he
would drive their cow to graze. His cow he was very fond of, and could
identify her among any number. She was a good milker.


The Escutcheon or Mirror.

In his authorized account of the discovery and perfection of his system,
Guenon uses the following language: “When fourteen years of age, I used,
according to country custom, to drive our only cow to the grazing ground.
I was very fond of her, and could have identified her among ever so
many. One day as I was whiling away the time in cleaning and scratching
my old companion, I noticed that a sort of bran or dandruff detached
itself in considerable quantities from certain spots on her hind parts,
formed by the meeting of the hair as it grew in opposite directions,
which spots I have since called _ears_, from the resemblance they often
bear to the bearded ears or heads of wheat or rye. This first attracted
my attention, and I recollected having heard my grandfather say that it
was probable that there were external marks on cows whereby their good
qualities or their defects might be known—just as we judge of the vital
force of a plant and its qualities by means of its leaves and lines in
its skin. Reflecting on the subject, I arrived at the conclusion that
if in the vegetable kingdom there exists external signs, whereby the
good and the bad qualities of a plant can be positively known, there
ought to exist in the animal, or its kingdom, also, marks whereby we may
judge, by inspecting an animal, of its qualities, good and bad, and I
thought I had discovered one of these signs. I sought the bearded ears
or quirls, and scratched those spots in quest of dandruff, the abundance
or scarcity of this being what first engaged my attention. Every new cow
was compared with my own as a standard, and her superiority, equality, or
inferiority determined in my own mind. In the course of the comparisons
thus instituted by me, with reference to the dandruff alone, which was
at first the only thing that governed me, I had occasion to remark that
great diversities existed among cows in respect to the shape of the
bearded ears (quirls) which produced the dandruff. This suggested a
new train of reflection and observation, which resulted in my becoming
convinced that these _shapes_ were the signs by which to distinguish
cows, and to know the good and bad qualities of every individual among
them.”

[Illustration: Imported Jersey Cow BLACK BESS.]

[Illustration: Imported Jersey Cow TIBERIA.

Belonging to C. L. Sharpless, Philadelphia.]

In his original plan, Guenon divided these different shapes into
eight classes, each of which was sub-divided into eight orders. As he
progressed in his investigations, he afterwards added two more classes,
and reduced the orders to six in each class. These he supposed would
cover all cases which might come up for examination. He also divided
cows into three grades, which, in accordance with their _size_, he
styled high, low, and medium. From this it will be noted that Guenon, in
classifying cows, was governed first by the class, second by the order
in the class, and finally by their size. These _classes_ he divided and
named as follows:

     1st class, or Flanders.
     2d    ”    ”  Left Flanders.
     3d    ”    ”  Selvage.
     4th   ”    ”  Curveline.
     5th   ”    ”  Bicorn.
     6th   ”    ”  Double Selvage.
     7th   ”    ”  Demijohn.
     8th   ”    ”  Square Escutcheon.
     9th   ”    ”  Limousine.
    10th   ”    ”  Horizontal.

The ten orders in each of these classes were simply designated by their
appropriate numerals. Each _class_ was better than the succeeding one,
and each _order_ better than the following one of the _same_ class, but
might be better than the preceding order of the _next_ class.

Of this seeming multiplicity of classes, orders, and sizes, Chalkley
Harvey, one of the commission appointed to test the system, writes thus:

    “Now this may seem somewhat discouraging to your readers, but
    with all due respect to Guenon, to whom all honor and praise
    should be accorded for his brilliant discovery, I think that
    it may be so simplified that every farmer, dairyman, and dealer
    can learn it all in a short time, and may find the study
    quite interesting. I began it laboriously, supposing that a
    mastery of all the details was necessary to make it of any
    use, but more than twenty years of constant application in
    practice has simplified it to my mind, and has added a little,
    I think, to the original discovery. The substance of Guenon’s
    discovery is that the milking qualities of any cow, of any
    breed, are indicated by an outward sign that all may see and
    easily understand. The hair on a cow, as on other animals,
    grows downward on the hind-quarters, but there is an exception
    to this rule on the back part of the udder, where it usually
    grows upward. The first lesson for a beginner is to notice this
    fact. Let him stand behind a quiet cow, and rub the hair on the
    udder both ways until he sees or feels just what I mean. Guenon
    called the surface that is covered by this upward growth the
    escutcheon; others have called it the milk-mirror; but this is
    no improvement in any respect, and I shall name it as Guenon
    did, for there is no real objection to that name, and there
    is serious objection to making confusion by calling the same
    thing by different names. The escutcheon, then, is that surface
    on the cow’s udder where the hair grows upward. But it is not
    confined to the udder, it extends upward above the udder, often
    to the vulva, and outward upon the thighs on both sides of the
    udder. (See Flanders cow, class first, order first.) These
    escutcheons are different in size, in shape, and in quality,
    (quality means the quality of the skin, and of the hair growing
    on it,) and these differences indicate the different milking
    qualities of the cows, including quantity and quality of
    milk, and the length of time they will give milk after being
    with calf. On the edges of the escutcheon where the upward
    and the downward growths of hair meet, a feather is formed,
    and this is most conspicuous on the back part of the thighs
    where escutcheons extend that wide. If the hair is long, as it
    generally is in winter time, the observer can define the limits
    of the escutcheon better by applying his hand, and smoothing
    the hair to its natural place. He will now perceive that the
    hair on the escutcheon is shorter and softer than elsewhere,
    as well as turned upward in its growth, and sometimes nearly
    resembles fur.

    “Let us now particularly consider the shapes and sizes of
    these escutcheons. There is one general shape to which they
    conform, and that is that they are wider below than above, and
    at or near the top of the udder they narrow in abruptly; some
    continue up as far as the vulva, and even above it, and others
    but a little distance above the udder. The size and shape of
    this upper part of the escutcheon is of less importance than
    that of the lower part, but both must be considered—the larger
    the escutcheon the better. All great milkers have very large
    escutcheons. In large ones the upturned growth often begins
    on the belly, in front of the udder, extends along between
    the teats and up the back part of the udder, over the whole
    width. Indeed, the udder is not wide enough for it, and it
    encroaches on the thighs, where we may find the hair having
    an upward growth on them, inside next the udder, beginning
    not far above the hock joints, and running up as high as the
    wide part of the escutcheon extends up the thighs, and which
    often terminates with corresponding curls in the hair at the
    outlines, and the higher up and wider these are apart the
    better. Though the extension of the escutcheon to the front
    part of the udder on the belly has been mentioned, that is not
    a matter of practical interest in ordinary cases. All that
    needs to be studied is plain to be seen by standing behind
    the cow. When the escutcheon is small, it does not reach the
    thighs, and often does not cover the whole of the back part
    of the udder. These differences in size can be distinguished
    at the first lesson taken in the cow-yard, and when that has
    been done, the next thing is to consider their shapes. A good
    escutcheon is symmetrical. The feathers on the two thighs
    are at equal distance from the middle line of the body, and
    extend up to equal heights on the back parts of the thighs.
    A broad and high escutcheon, (speaking now only of the lower
    broad part of it,) that is _alike on both sides_, certainly
    indicates a superior milker. There is nearly always another
    sign accompanying such an escutcheon, and that is one or two
    _ovals_ just above the hind teats, on which a _fine_ coat of
    hair grows downward. These may be large or small, may be one or
    two, and may be alike in size, or unlike, but they are always
    good signs. Two are better than one, and the larger and more
    uniform they are the better; they are almost always present on
    large and symmetrical escutcheons. No escutcheon is ever first
    class if it has not one or both, and one, at least, of good
    size. What constitutes ‘good size’ will be better learned by a
    few observations than can be taught by inches, and I want to
    leave something to the ingenuity of the learner, to make the
    study interesting.

    “Now, let us consider the shape and size of that part of the
    escutcheon which I have spoken of as the upper part; that is,
    the narrow portion that has its base on the top of the lower
    and wider portions, and runs up toward the vulva. Sometimes,
    though very rarely, this does not exist at all. Sometimes it
    is broad, and extends all the way up, with perfect symmetry.
    Sometimes it terminates in a curved line, at a greater or less
    distance up; and, indeed, it may be seen of almost any shape.
    As a sign of excellence, the larger and more symmetrical it
    is, the better—but a good _lower_ part of the escutcheon is
    the main thing, and that, as a sign, can hardly be vitiated
    by any imperfection of the upper part. When the lower part is
    very good, there is usually uniformity in the part. A poor
    escutcheon is one that is small, or that is imperfect in form.”


The Progress of His System.

With his mind keenly alive to the pursuit of his investigations, he soon
perceived the difference in the shape of these quirls or marks in the
hair. We can imagine how, when he saw any cow with the same escutcheon
as his own had, he would eagerly and closely question the owner, and
then make his comparisons and deductions. Then, again, when he would see
variations from his cow’s escutcheon, whether larger or smaller, though
of similar shape, how he would study them over! When he would ask of the
owner such questions, directed by his knowledge of the cow’s marks, the
owner would stare, and think how the lad could know so well of _his_ cow.
And then his secret exultation when the answers showed him that he had
judged aright! We can imagine this young enthusiast going on, from step
to step, filling up his leisure with his acquisitions of his new theory,
which was becoming fact, and growing into a system.

From his first step of discovering the dandruff, its scarcity or
abundance, to his noticing the great diversity existing among cows as to
the shape of the bearded ears or quirls, and being convinced these shapes
were the signs by which to distinguish cows, and then to make sure that
the same mark might always be relied upon as a positive sign of the same
perfection or defect; were all steps in the discovery that engrossed
his whole mind. He gave up his trade, traveled about, visiting cattle
markets, fairs, and stables. Conversing and cross-questioning all whom
he could; fixing the results in his mind, and getting the classification
shaped out. He talked with farmers, dealers, and veterinary men,
ascertained their modes of judging of the points of an animal, and found
they were all by their own favorite signs and marks. One looked to the
udder, the horns, the hide, or the shape; others to the hair, the veins,
or something else; but none judged by the signs which he had found
out. All were uncertain. The most the best judges could do would be to
guess rightly, perhaps, three times out of five, but none could tell
how long a cow would milk. Perfecting his judgment he would visit the
same places and the same cows several times in a year, to see how nature
was operating upon the animals, and their changes of character in the
different periods of gestation, their treatment and food.

Of course, he soon began to put his theories to practical value, and he
dealt in cattle on his own account. This brought before him cattle from
Holland, Switzerland, Brittany, and other countries. This improved his
opportunities by proving to him that, no matter what country gave them
birth, all individuals possessing the same marks belonged to the same
class and the same orders; in short, that nature acted through uniform
laws.


Imperfections and Tufts.

Variations would arise, from crossing two animals with different
escutcheons, from some defect in marking at the birth, from lack of
development, or from those freaks that nature sometimes plays. They
always prove stumbling-blocks in forming the judgment on some animals,
and furnish texts to the opponents of the system.

As Guenon continued his examinations, he found that his classes did not
afford a place for all animals, or rather that there were occasionally
to be found cows whose escutcheons while apparently belonging to one of
these classes, had at the same time, certain distinguished features which
he styled imperfect escutcheons. These Mr. Hazard, the secretary of the
commission, described as follows:

“The perfect escutcheon of each Class is the one which is in Order No. 1.
All variations from this are rated lower in the scale; these variations
may consist of a smaller size, therefore, the escutcheon would not be so
broad or high upon the thighs, nor so broad upon the vertical portion;
they may consist of the lack of ovals, which would place them below the
first order; they may consist of blemishes, which are tufts of hair
growing alongside of the vulva, or below it; or they may consist of
strongly marked imperfections, which may be cuts or slices taken out of
the escutcheon; or, coarse, harsh, wiry hair on the back and upper part
of the udder. Finally, they may be so decided as to place the animal
among the bastards.”

Of the tufts, Guenon says all tufts encroaching on the escutcheon
diminish its value, except the oval ones on the udder; that is to say,
they indicate a diminished aptitude for yielding milk. The size and
location of these tufts make the animals descend one or more orders in
the classification. It is, therefore, important to attend to all the
patches of descending hairs which lessen the size of the escutcheon,
whether these occur in the middle of it or form indentations on the
sides. These indentations, partly concealed by the folds of the skin,
are sometimes perceived with difficulty. Many cows, which at first
glance appear to be well-marked, on close examination display their
deficiencies, and want of this scrutiny often causes mistakes in
estimating the value of cows, and thus the system suffers.

Guenon says the cause of the defects, as exhibited by the tufts on the
thighs, is that the veins situated beneath, on either side of the belly,
have a peculiarity; that they are contracted, and there is a small
opening for it where it pierces the abdominal muscles.

Sometimes there is an intermingling of two forms of escutcheons. This
depends upon the crossing between a cow of one class and a bull of
another. This is one of the difficulties to be encountered in precisely
estimating the value of the animal.

Guenon classified the seven tufts, into two kinds: Those on which the
hair ascends, and those on which it descends. Those with ascending
hairs are simply traces which encroach on the descending hair outside
the escutcheon, either on one side or beneath the vulva. Those with the
descending hair are on the escutcheon, and are five in number.

1. _Epi ovale_, oval tuft. These are situated on the udder, like those
on class one, two, three, four, order first. They are good signs, if of
descending fine hair, small, and regular. They are mostly seen on only
the best cows, though occasionally to be met with in some of the lower
orders.

2. _Epi fessard_, ischiatic tuft. These are found on the vertical
escutcheon on one or both sides of the vulva, as in class four, five,
orders two, three, four; and very conspicuously in the bastards of class
three, four, five, six. They are of ascending hair, and never seen in
first class cows, but in most others to a limited extent.

3. _Epi babin_, lip-shaped tuft. This is only seen as a sign of
deterioration in the two first classes; it is made by descending hairs,
and is a defect for milking qualities. It is like a string hanging over
the top of the vulva, and making its outline a little below it on each
side. It is seldom seen.

4. _Epi vulvé_, vulvan tuft. This is also a deteriorating sign; is a tuft
of descending hair directly under the vulva, as in class one, orders
three and four.

5. _Epi batard_, perinæal tuft. This is always a bad mark, as it exists
on otherwise good marked cows, and indicates a diminution of milk, as
soon as the cow becomes pregnant. It is seen on class one, bastard. A cow
is to be looked upon with suspicion that has this mark largely developed.

6. _Epi cuissard_, thigh tufts. These are diminutions of the escutcheon
by encroachment of descending hair, and denote a diminishing of the
quantity of milk, proportionate to their extent. See class one and two,
order four.

7. _Epi jonctif_, mesian tuft. The mesian or dart-like tuft, with soft
silky ascending hair, is rarely seen, and only in those classes in which
the escutcheon does not ascend to the vulva. It is like a V hanging
beneath the vulva, and is not fully represented in the plates, though
class ten, order two, shows it somewhat.

In these observations among cows, not only during their work as members
of the commission, but also in preceding examinations, Messrs. Blight,
Harvey, and Hazard noticed a series of marks, which they have denominated
_thigh ovals_. The plate showing the escutcheon of Mr. Hazard’s Jersey
cow furnishes one of the best illustration of these marks yet met with by
the commission. Where the vertical escutcheon joins and widens out into
the thigh escutcheon, there is usually a dip of a curved shape more or
less in extent. In the plate above alluded to these thigh ovals descend
nearly to the base of the udder. In their careful examination of more
than two hundred cows, the commission always found these marks only on
good cows.

In his examinations Guenon found cows of apparently each class with
certain variations in their markings which distinguished them and
prevented their incorporation into any class, and, yet the similarity
gives them a claim in their particular class. In all cases he claims to
have noted that cows thus marked would milk as well as other members
of their class, until they were got with calf, but as soon as this was
accomplished, the quantity of milk fell off rapidly. The commission
claim it is this style of marking which is most likely to deceive the
superficial or amateur investigators, and that these have caused the
assertion that a poor cow may be well marked, when in reality, if
properly understood, she was not well marked. This class of cows Guenon
styled _Bastards_, and he practically assigned to them a distinctive or
seventh _order_ in each class.

In 1822, Guenon seems to have first reduced his system to a classified
basis, and from that time until 1828 he appears to have given it much of
his time and attention. Having, as he deemed, sufficiently arranged and
tested his system, he, in 1828, applied to the academy of Bordeaux for a
public test of the correctness of his mode of judging of cows and their
milking value.

[Illustration: Escutcheon of ROSIE.

Thorough-bred Jersey Cow, belonging to Willis P. Hazard.]

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.

    By D. E. SALMON, _D. V. M._

    Several of our prominent dairy writers have been lately
    discussing the more complicated questions of their department
    in a very energetic and decided, if not in a scrupulously exact
    manner. Now, if these questions are worth the time and space
    necessary for their presentation at length, they are certainly
    of sufficient importance to receive candid and perfectly
    truthful treatment; and, though these writers may not have
    intended to give wrong impressions, their teachings can hardly
    be considered, in several respects, as representing the present
    condition of knowledge on these points.

    MAGNE’S THEORY OF THE ESCUTCHEON.—In Mr. Eastburn Reeder’s
    essay on the escutcheon—which is a valuable paper, though
    marred in the above respects—there is an attempt at scientific
    argument in order to ridicule the accepted value of the
    milk-mirror; and the assumed facts on which this argument is
    based, are presented in such a positive manner that they will
    probably be accepted, without further investigation, by the
    majority of readers unless contested at once. The writer has
    hesitated to do this in the hope that it would be done by some
    one else; but the truth is of too much consequence to allow the
    matter to pass entirely without notice.

    The first point to which I will call attention is the attempt
    to dispute Magne’s opinion that the hair turns in the direction
    in which the arteries ramify, and that the reversed hair on
    the udder and adjacent parts indicates the termination of the
    arteries which supply the udder with blood. When these arteries
    are large, he holds, they extend through the udder upward and
    onward, ramifying on the skin beyond the udder, and giving the
    hair the peculiar appearance which distinguishes it from the
    rest of the surface. If these arteries are very small, they are
    not likely to extend much beyond the udder, and, hence, form a
    small escutcheon; consequently, a small escutcheon indicates a
    feeble supply of blood, and little material to make milk of.

    Now how is this combatted? The first argument is that “when Mr.
    Hardin showed this paragraph to one of the most learned medical
    professors at Louisville, Kentucky, he at once wanted to know
    who this Magne was, and declared his name unknown in the annals
    of medical science.” What are we to think of such a statement
    as that? Magne—member of the French Academy of Medicine,
    formerly director of the Alfort Veterinary School and professor
    of Lyons—unknown in the annals of medicine!

    We are then asked if the arteries are not the same in all
    cows, and are told that we might as well expect more bones or
    muscles as more arteries. If Mr. Reeder will turn to Chauveau’s
    Anatomy—one of the best authorities in the world—he will find,
    in general remarks on arteries, the following statement, which
    I translate, not having the English edition: “Arteries very
    often present variations in their deposition, which the surgeon
    should keep in mind. These variations ordinarily concern the
    number, the point of origin, and the volume of the vessels.”
    And if he will go through the list of arteries, he will find
    examples given of each of these variations.

    Again, he asks, “how is it that the ramification of the
    arterial circulation _causes_ the hair to grow in one direction
    on one part of the cow’s body, and in the opposite on other
    parts?” Not a very difficult question, if we admit that
    arteries have such an effect, for they certainly do not all
    ramify in the same direction.

    In a revised edition of the essay, subsequently published,
    some important points were added. Here we are told that
    “the arteries supplying the udder with blood are called the
    _mammary_ arteries, and their ramification _does not extend
    beyond the outer surface of the udder_. Further down the
    _aorta_, or main artery, another pair of arteries branches off,
    called the _femoral_ arteries. These supply the muscles of the
    thigh, or what we know as the _rounds of beef_, with blood,
    and ramify upon the portion of the escutcheon lying between
    them. Still further down, another pair of arteries, called the
    _gluteal_ arteries, leave the _aorta_, and are distributed
    through the pelvic region, and ramify upon the extreme upper
    portion of the escutcheon. Here we have at least three distinct
    systems of arteries ramifying upon the escutcheon, and _two_ of
    them most certainly have no connection with the milk secretion
    whatever.”

    Without attempting to point out _all_ the errors of this
    description, we will once more refer to Chauveau to settle the
    more important points. The reader will find in that work that
    the _femoral_ arteries have a branch called the _pre-pubic_,
    which in turn has a branch called the _external pudic_, from
    which the _mammary_ artery branches. It will also be found
    that the mammary artery “sends several divisions to the
    tissue of the udder, and is prolonged between the thighs by a
    perineal branch, which terminates in the inferior commissure
    of the vulva, after having furnished glandular and _cutaneous_
    divisions.” Turning to the description of the gluteal arteries,
    we find that they ramify in the gluteal muscles, which are at
    a considerable distance from the perineum, and that nothing is
    said of their going to the last named part.

    Here, then, is complete and positive refutation of these
    arguments—not by mere statements of my own, but by the words of
    a standard work, of world-wide reputation, on the anatomy of
    these animals. Magne’s _facts_ are correct, then, whether his
    inferences are or not. _The same artery that supplies the udder
    with blood supplies the skin on which the escutcheon is formed;
    and, more than this, the artery ramifies in the direction
    in which the hair of the escutcheon grows._ Is there any
    connection between the two for all that? Who knows? A point or
    two to show that such a connection is not beyond the possible
    may still be in place.

    Erasmus Wilson, who has made a specialty of the skin and its
    diseases, shows that the direction of the hairs on the anterior
    surface of the human body is, commencing at a point near the
    arm-pit, downwards and slightly inwards towards the umbilicus,
    and that below this point the direction is upwards and inwards;
    so that the umbilicus “is the center of convergence of four
    streams,” as he expresses it.

    Now this disposition, complicated though it is, certainly
    resembles that of the arteries—the branches from the _axillary_
    artery passing downwards and inwards, while the _epigastric_
    arteries branch from the _femorals_ near the groin, and have
    a direction upwards and inwards. On the neck, the direction
    of the hair is upwards and backwards; in front of the ear, it
    is downwards and forwards; behind the ear, it is backwards—in
    each case following the arterial ramifications. In addition,
    Tisserant and others in France, who stand high as authorities,
    admit that the escutcheon continues to increase in relative
    surface till the second or third milking—that is, till the
    development of the udder, and, consequently, of the vessels
    supplying it have reached their highest point.

    In some cases, it must be confessed, the correspondence in
    question apparently does not exist, but rather the opposite;
    and as the mammary artery has substantially the same
    distribution with horses as with cattle, we cannot see why the
    former should not be as plainly marked as the latter, if the
    direction of the hair depends on the direction of the arteries.

    But, it may be asked, in what possible manner could the one
    condition influence the other? It must be remembered that
    physiology is still a growing science, and that there are
    many things yet to learn, so that it is still pardonable to
    confess ignorance. We know, however, that the cavity in the
    skin surrounding the hair (hair follicle) is set in an oblique
    direction, as well as the hair that emerges from it; the
    papilla at the bottom of this cavity must also be inclined,
    and it is this that, in all probability, decides the direction
    of the hair, as the growth of this takes place by additions
    of cells from the surface of the papilla. Now, each papilla,
    or elevation, has a vascular loop, or, as some say, a minute
    artery and vein, and one can easily imagine how the direction
    of this minute artery might influence the direction of the
    papillary summit, and, consequently, of the hair that grows
    from it.

    I do not say that this is the proper explanation, but I suggest
    it as one way in which the correspondence might be accounted
    for. I do say, however, that the evidence brought to bear on
    this point by Mr. Reeder can have no influence in deciding the
    question, for the reason I have given.

    Dr. Henry Stewart, the noted scientific and practical farmer
    and writer, said lately; “I have for some time past been
    studying the nature of the escutcheon physiogically and
    anatomically.” And he has “recently discovered a still more
    satisfactory connection between the milking capacity of a cow
    and the development of the escutcheon.”

    “The milk-vein is an important mark of the deep-milking cow.
    But it is not the veins, but the arteries, which supply blood
    to the system, either for the production of tissue or the
    secretion of the milk. And yet the veins are important because
    they bear a direct relation to the arteries, being the return
    channels for the blood after it has fulfilled its functions;
    and so the larger supply of blood conveyed by the arteries
    requiring a vein of large capacity to return it, this vein is
    an ultimate indication of the vigor of the circulation of the
    lacteal organs. The main artery which supplies these organs
    is the subcutaneous abdominal [what Mr. S. says is commonly
    called the milk-vein.] This important artery supplies a large
    part of the posterior portion of the system, furnishing blood
    to the genital organs and the skin covering these and the
    adjacent parts. The subcutaneous abdominal artery is one of the
    two branches of the external pudic artery in the female, the
    other being the mammary artery. This last is very voluminous
    and distributes several main branches to the mammary glands
    and tissue, and also by a prolongation between the thighs,
    supplies the inferior commissure of the vulva and gives off
    many smaller branches, which spread into a network among the
    glandular tissue and the cutaneous structure. Here is the close
    connection, then, between the skin of the posterior part of the
    cow, from the lower point of the vulva down between the thighs
    and around the udder, and the udder itself. The same artery
    supplies all this portion of the skin, furnishes the subaceous
    glands and the hair follicles, and the whole cutaneous
    structure, and the hair also with blood, and also provides
    for the demands of the milk-secreting organs. A vigorous
    circulation through a voluminous arterial system ... gives a
    relatively vigorous milk secretion, and, as well, a growth of
    hair, which curls and forms the well-known peculiar structure
    of the escutcheon.”




C. L. SHARPLESS ON THE ESCUTCHEON.


We extract from our book on “The Jersey, Guernsey, and Alderney Cow,”
some remarks on the escutcheon, by Charles L. Sharpless, of Philadelphia.
We consider him one of the best judges, a most intelligent breeder,
and he has paid the highest price ever given for a Jersey cow in this
country. The portraits of Duchess, Rosa, Black Bess, Tiberia, and the
bull, Comet of M., bear out our assertion.

    “There is no point in judging a cow so little understood as
    the escutcheon. The conclusion of almost every one is, that
    her escutcheon is good, if there be a broad band of up-running
    hair from the udder to the vulva, and around it—see Fig. 1.
    These cows, with the broad vertical escutcheon, are nearly
    always parallel cows; that is, with bodies long, but not large,
    and with the under line parallel with the back. Their thighs
    are thin, and the thigh escutcheon shows on the inside of the
    thigh, rather than on its rear.

    “Next comes the wedge-shaped cow, with the body shorter, but
    very large, deep in the flank, and very capacious. This form
    does not usually exhibit the broad vertical escutcheon, running
    up to the vulva, but with a broader thigh may exhibit a thigh
    escutcheon, which is preferable to the other, thus—see Fig. 2.

    “In both vertical and thigh mirrors, where the hair runs down,
    intruding on the udder, (as low as above the dotted lines,) as
    in Figs. 3 and 4, it damages the escutcheon. If you find a cow
    with the hair all running down, and between the thighs—that is,
    with no up-running hair—stamp her as a cipher for milk-yielding.

    “The artist has made the udders to Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4 the
    same size, while in reality they will vary according to the
    escutcheon.

    “There are times when the udder of a cow, with an escutcheon
    like Fig. 4, will be enlarged by non-milking, for the purpose
    of deception. It is always safer to judge by the escutcheon,
    rather than by the large size of the udder.

    “The escutcheons of the best cows—those yielding the most and
    continuing the longest—will be found to be those which conform
    to Fig. 2. [Mr. S. alludes to the selvage: one of the best, and
    common among the best cows. H.]

    “The vertical escutcheon of Fig. 1, would not injure it; but if
    that ornamental feature has to be at the expense of the thigh
    escutcheon, Fig. 2 is best as it is.

    “Whenever an escutcheon is accompanied by a curl on each
    hind-quarter of the udder, it indicates a yield of the highest
    order....

    “So far we have noticed only the rear escutcheon, or that
    which represents the two hind-quarters of the udder. The two
    front-quarters are just as important, and should be capacious,
    and run well forward under the body—see A. If the udder,
    in front, be concave, or cut up as in B, indicating small
    capacity, it represents reduced yield.

    “This front or level escutcheon is distinctly marked in the
    young heifer or bull, and can be seen by laying the animal on
    its back. The udder hair under the body all runs backward,
    commencing at the forward line of the escutcheon—see dotted
    lines in Figs. 6, 7, 8. This dividing line is very perceptible,
    from the fact that the hair in front of it all runs forward
    towards the head of the animal, while the escutcheon, or udder
    hair, all runs backward over the forward quarters of the udder,
    around and beyond the teats, and ceases at the markings of the
    rear escutcheon, on and between the thighs.

    [Illustration: Fig. 1.]

    [Illustration: Fig. 2.]

    [Illustration: Fig. 3.]

    [Illustration: Fig. 4.]

    [Illustration]

    [Illustration: Fig. 6. LOTTIE STARR.—10 mos. old.]

    [Illustration: Fig. 7. SYLVA—10 mos. old.]

    [Illustration: Fig. 8. COLUMBUS.—10 mos. old.]

    “The breadth and extent forward of this front escutcheon,
    indicates the capacity in the mature animal, of the front
    quarters of her udder. In some cases this front escutcheon
    will be found of twice the extent that it is in others, and is
    evidence of that much more yield. The dimensions on Figs. 6, 7,
    8, are actual measurements—the first two of heifers, and the
    last of a bull. If Fig. 7 represents four quarts as the yield
    per day of the front quarters, Fig. 6 will represent eight,
    thus, if the rear yield is the same, say four quarts in each
    cow, the total yield of Fig. 6 will be twelve quarts, while
    that of Fig. 7 is but eight. This examination enables one to
    see the size of the teats and their distance apart, and to test
    the looseness and softness of the udder skin. It is marked
    precisely the same in bulls, see Fig. 8, and can be easily
    examined at any age between one and ten months.

    “Udders of all shapes hold milk, and some homely ones hold
    a large quantity. B, C, D, and E, at a glance explain their
    deficiencies, both of shape, lack of capacity, and bad style of
    teats. In udder A, we have the perfect shape....

    “Many think that the escutcheon of the bull is of but little
    moment, so that he is a good-looker. So far is this from being
    the case, that a bull, with a mirror like Fig. 4. or worse,
    will stamp his escutcheon on, and to that extent damage his
    daughters, out of cows with escutcheons as choice as Fig. 2.
    In this way the daughters of some of the best cows come very
    ordinary, while, if you use a bull marked like Fig. 2, he will
    make poor escutcheons better, and will improve the best. His
    injury or benefit will be doubled, according to the escutcheon
    markings under his body in front of his scrotum. Hence the
    importance of the dam of a bull being unexceptionable in her
    udder and escutcheon. Her qualities, inherited by her son, will
    be transmitted to his daughters.

[Mr. Sharpless’ bull Comet of M. is one of the finest Jersey bulls
we ever saw, and his escutcheon is unexceptionable, being a perfect
curveline, the one most commonly found on bulls.]

    “While careful as to escutcheons, we must not neglect the
    other essential features of a good cow—the buckskin hide, the
    rich-colored skin, and the fine bone. Let the hair be soft and
    thickly set, and let the skin be mellow. This latter quality is
    easily determined by grasping between the thumb and forefinger
    the skin at the rear of the ribs, or the double thickness at
    the base of the flank that joins the stifle joint to the body,
    or that on the inside of the rump-bone at the setting-on of
    the tail. Let the teats be well apart; let them yield a full
    and free stream, and be large enough to fill the hand without
    the necessity in milking of pulling them between the thumb
    and forefingers. And let us ever keep in mind that the large
    yielder must be well fed.”

Those who condemn Jersey cows as small yielders of milk and butter,
should listen to the story of “Rosa” as told by her owner, C. L.
Sharpless. She is five years old, is solid creamy fawn, and, combined
with great volume and bone, she is neat in the head and neck, and with
fine legs. Her dam was a small mouse-colored cow, and her sire’s dam a
small fawn-colored, neither of which would give over twelve quarts.

    “We found we were making a good deal of butter, and as ‘Rosa’
    looked superbly, we determined to test her butter quality. We
    fed her per day twenty pounds of hay, eight quarts of meal, and
    four quarts of carrots. The meal was a mixture of good wheat
    bran and cornmeal, in the proportion of four bushels of the
    former to one bushel of the latter. Her yield the first day was
    sixteen quarts, the second day fifteen and a half quarts, the
    third day sixteen quarts, and the next morning eight quarts;
    being in all seven milkings, or half the week. Her milk was
    kept separate; was skimmed after standing thirty-six hours, and
    made six and three fourths pounds of butter, or thirteen and a
    half pounds for the week.

    “As you place Rosa and Duchess side by side there are some
    points of agreement and of difference that are of interest to
    notice. They are both wedge-shaped, with large body—Duchess
    the more bony, but Rosa with the greater rear volume, (broader
    hips, &c.) They both have neat heads and necks, and fine bone.
    Duchess is, in winter, smoke-color, with brilliant white, but
    not with black points. She has yellow hoofs and skin, and
    her udder is rich yellow. Rosa has yellow hoofs, and yellow
    inside her ears, but a pale skin and udder, and would be
    called a butter cow inferior to Duchess, and yet she has just
    proved herself one half pound greater. The color of it is the
    deepest—no coloring matter being used. This upsets the theory
    that a yellow skin is essential for deep-colored butter.
    Perhaps a safer way to put it is, that though a rich yellow
    skin is evidence of butter quality, yet equally good quality
    may come from a pale skin, provided the cow has yellow inside
    her ears.

    “Again, as to vertical or rear escutcheons both these cows
    exhibit, the broad part diminishes as it rises, until, when
    within six to nine inches of the vulva, it is reduced to the
    breadth of not over an inch wide. Thus they agree in their rear
    escutcheons, and they agree also in udders of great capacity,
    these being deep and broad, and running well forward under the
    body.

    “There is a point on which they differ. The hair on Duchess
    is soft and furry as a mole; that of Rosa is fairly fine, but
    still hair.

    “So that in a word one can say soft hair, a large escutcheon,
    and a yellow skin are desirable, but there may be choice cows
    not conspicuous, for either.

    “To show how we sometimes let our best animals slip, I will add
    that when Rosa was a heifer I was tempted to part with her for
    what seemed a great price—$500. In about two weeks she had a
    heifer calf, for which her owner was offered $150. When three
    years old she had a second heifer, which he sold for $180;
    and when four years old she had a third heifer calf, which
    he sold for $100. He then sold his place and all his stock,
    and I bought her at public sale for $375 for her beauty. Her
    pale skin deceived me as to her butter quality, and her, as I
    thought, deficient escutcheon misled me as to her large yield.
    She now, as a five-year old, has her fourth calf, which is a
    bull, and some two months old.

    “In giving above her yield, I gave also her feed. Such is her
    constitution and appetite that I think she would have eaten
    half as much more, and in that way her yield might have been
    very much increased. It was good enough as it was, particularly
    as there have been choice cows so forced that, though the
    premium was won, the cow was lost. The winter yield, on dry
    feed, of sixteen quarts is considered equivalent to eighteen on
    grass.”

[Illustration: ROSA.—Imported Jersey, belonging to C. L. Sharpless.]




DESCRIPTION OF THE CLASSES AND ORDERS.

Prepared by W. P. HAZARD, _Secretary of the Pennsylvania Guenon
Commission_.


In the following descriptions of the ten classes, and their sub-division
into six orders each, we give the quantity as stated, for a large-sized
cow. Not thinking it worth while to enter so minutely into his
sub-divisions of high, medium, and low cows. For instance, to class one,
order one, he gives to the high cow twenty-four litres, which is about
equal to our twenty-four quarts here; the litre being exactly two and one
eighth wine pints. To the medium cow he gives nineteen quarts, and to
the low cow, fourteen quarts, per day. The size of his high cow is five
hundred and fifty to six hundred and fifty pounds, _dressed weight_; the
medium, three hundred and twenty-five to four hundred and fifty pounds
and the low, one hundred and ten to two hundred and twenty-five pounds.
As most of our cows will range with the high cows, we have adopted the
scale suitable to the size, only the reader who practices the system must
keep in mind that the larger and more developed the cow, the more she
will be likely to give than the cow of smaller size.


First Class. The Flanders Cow.

Cows with this escutcheon are the most seldom found, except among the
most abundant milkers. In the first order they give twenty quarts per
day, in the height of their flow; that is to say, from the time they
have calved until they are pregnant again. Then they diminish, little by
little, until their next calving. It is best to dry them off from four to
six weeks before calving, to give them a needed rest, and it improves the
calf.

[Illustration]

Cows of the first class have a soft udder, with fine hair on it, rising
until it blends with similar hair growing upward on the thighs, above
the hock, and widening on the thick part of the thigh, then narrowing,
like in the engraving, until it reaches the vulva, and being about two
inches on each side of it. The inner parts of the thigh, and the vertical
mirror are usually of a yellowish or nankeen color, with dark spots on
them, from which can be detached the dandruff. There are two ovals on the
udder, of fine short hair.

[Illustration]

The second order of the first class are similar to the first, but the
escutcheon is smaller; and on the right side of the vulva is a tuft
of descending hair about two and one half inches long and one and one
half inches broad, and there is but one oval on the udder. They yield
eighteen quarts of milk for a period of eight months.

[Illustration]

The third order of the first class is still smaller, and not quite so
decided in shape. It has also a semi-circular tuft below the vulva of
small size, of descending hair, rather shining and of brighter color.
There is either only one oval on the udder, or generally none.

Cows of the third order yield sixteen quarts, and milk for six months.

[Illustration]

The fourth order of the first class, besides being still smaller, has
narrower thigh escutcheons, and lower down; also the tuft under the
vulva is quite long, about five or six inches, which sometimes make the
vertical escutcheon terminate in a fork. This tuft has more lustre and is
whiter than the hair around it. There is also a thigh tuft of half oval
shape on the right of the escutcheon, about five inches high.

Cows of the fourth order yield twelve quarts a day, and milk five months.

[Illustration]

The Bastard Flanders have two marks which distinguish them: 1. Some have
on the vertical escutcheon an oval tuft, about the middle of it; this
tuft has descending hair, is about three inches long and two inches wide,
and the lustre of the hair makes it appear as if it was whiter than that
around it. The larger the oval the sooner the milk will fail, and the
smaller it is the longer will she milk. 2. Other Bastards of this class
are distinguished by the ascending and descending hair interfering with
each other on the outlines of the vertical escutcheon, looking feathery,
or bristling like the beard of wheat. The skin is fine and reddish, but
there is no dandruff. The larger the escutcheon, and the finer the hair,
the more abundant the milk; but when the hair is coarse, long, and thin,
the yield is small. Both kinds of Bastards of this class have every other
appearance of the best cows. And all Bastards of the first classes have
the two ovals on the udder.


Second Class. Left Flanders.

[Illustration]

The cows of this class are very similar to those of the first class,
though their yield is rather less. The vertical escutcheon is entirely to
the left of the vulva, and the thigh escutcheon on the right is broader
than that on the left. By comparison with the first class, these will be
seen to be very similar, but in each order smaller; therefore, it will
not be necessary to describe them separately, but simply to state the
yield. Cows of the first order of the second class will yield eighteen
quarts, and milk eight months.

[Illustration]

The second order of the second class have the lip-shaped tuft to the left
of the vulva, and have one oval on the left of the udder. Cows of this
order give sixteen quarts, and milk seven months.

[Illustration]

The third order has the same shaped escutcheon, but more contracted,
and the lip-shaped tuft is larger and whiter. Cows of this order give
fourteen quarts, and milk six months.

[Illustration]

The fourth order has two invasions of the thigh escutcheon by the
down-growing hair, a semi-oval one on the right, and a triangular one on
the left. These always indicate a reduced quantity of milk.

Cows of the fourth order give ten quarts, and milk five months.

[Illustration]

The escutcheon of the Bastard Left Flanders is known by this peculiarity.
The developments are larger and more irregular on the top of the
vertical escutcheon, and to the left of the vulva; on the right is the
ischiatic tuft, quite large, from which the hair is diverted in an almost
horizontal direction.


Third Class.—Selvage.

The escutcheon of this class commences above the hock, runs up on the
thighs quite high, thence it descends somewhat from both sides to the
vertical portion, which rises, gradually narrowing to the vulva.

[Illustration]

The first order of the third class has an udder with soft skin, and fine
downy hair, which, as well as the thighs, are of a yellow or nankeen cast
of color. There are two ovals on the udder. Cows of the first order give
nineteen quarts, and milk eight months, and often will milk nine months,
not going dry unless made to.

[Illustration]

The second order is similar to the first, only of reduced size; it has
a tuft to the left of the vulva; and only one oval on the udder on the
left side; the hair of the escutcheon is generally more glossy than that
around it. Cows of the second order give seventeen quarts, and milk seven
months.

[Illustration]

The third order escutcheon curves downward on each side of the vertical
mirror, which rises narrowing to a point at the vulva; to the right and
left of the vulva are tufts, the one on the left being the longest; on
the left of the udder is sometimes an oval. Cows of the third order give
fifteen quarts, and milk six months.

[Illustration]

The escutcheon of the fourth order is of similar shape, but still
smaller; but the tuft on left of the vulva is much longer than on the
right, and there is no oval on the udder.

Cows of the fourth order give twelve quarts, and milk five months.

[Illustration]

The bastards of the third class have two tufts, one on the right, and one
on the left of the vulva, about four to five inches long, and one and one
half inches wide. The smaller they are, and the finer the hair on them,
the less rapid is the loss of milk. But if they are large and have coarse
hair, and are pointed at each end, they prove the milk to be poor and
serous, and the cow will fail rapidly.


The Fourth Class. Curveline.

[Illustration]

The Curveline cows are very plenty, and are of a very good grade,
approaching the first class. The escutcheon is broader than the last
two classes, in the upper part. Their skin is of delicate texture, and
nankeen shade of color on the escutcheon. The higher and broader the
curved line rises toward the vulva, which it never reaches, the better
it is. There are two ovals on the udder. Cows of the first order of the
fourth class give 19 quarts, and milk eight months, and sometimes up to
their next calf.

[Illustration]

The second order have the same shape escutcheon, but more contracted.
There is but one, and sometimes no oval on the udder. On the left of the
vulva is a small tuft.

Cows of the second order give seventeen quarts, and milk seven months.

[Illustration]

The third order has a smaller escutcheon, with two tufts by the vulva,
the left longer than the right, about four inches by one inch wide.
Sometimes an oval on the left side of the udder.

Cows of the third order give fifteen quarts, and milk six months.

[Illustration]

The fourth order has a much smaller escutcheon, reaching just above
the udder. The two tufts are larger alongside the vulva, and the hairs
bristle to each side. On the right, the down-growing hair intrudes
somewhat upon the escutcheon.

Cows of the fourth order give twelve quarts, and milk five months.

[Illustration]

The Bastards of the fourth class have a fine appearance of escutcheon,
but they are known by the tufts alongside the vulva. If they have coarse
bristly hair, and of large size, say four to five inches long, and one
and a half in width, they indicate a rapid loss of milk as soon as
pregnant, particularly if they are pointed at each end.


The Fifth Class. The Bicorn.

The escutcheons of this class in the vertical portion end below the vulva
in an indented shape, presenting the appearance of two upright horns.
Their udders are of a saffron color, delicate, with fine, soft hair, and
have much dandruff.

[Illustration]

The first order has two tufts of small size along the vulva, and two
ovals on the udder. They give seventeen quarts, and milk eight months.

[Illustration]

The second order are similar to the first, only smaller escutcheons, the
vulva tufts are longer, and there is but one oval on the udder, on the
left. The right horn of the escutcheon is smaller than the left one.

Cows of the second order give fifteen quarts, and milk seven months.

[Illustration]

The third order have similar escutcheons to the last, but smaller, while
the vulva tufts are larger, there are no ovals, and there is an invasion
of the descending hair on the right side. The right is two inches shorter
than the left.

Cows of the third order give thirteen quarts, and milk six months.

[Illustration]

The fourth order have the same shaped escutcheon, but smaller, with two
tufts alongside the vulva, larger than those on the last. On the right of
the escutcheon is a triangular cut in the shape, made by encroachments of
the down-growing hair.

Cows of the fourth order give ten quarts, and milk five months.

[Illustration]

The Bastards of the fifth class have the full escutcheon of the first
or second orders, but with two large tufts alongside the vulva, which,
according to their size, and more or less pointed shape, and fine or
coarse hair, indicate the more or less stoppage of the flow of milk.


The Sixth Class. Double Selvage.

The escutcheons of Double Selvage cows differ from those of Selvage, or
the third class, in that the escutcheon is marked in its whole length by
a strip of hair descending and dividing it into two equal portions. It
is bordered in its whole length and at the extremity by a double line of
ascending hair, which extends the escutcheon up to the vulva. Otherwise
it is like the selvage escutcheon.

[Illustration]

The first order cows have a fine udder, soft, and covered with a silky
down; and its skin is yellowish or nankeen. Cows of the first order give
eighteen quarts, and milk full eight months.

[Illustration]

The second order have a similar escutcheon, but smaller, and the
separating strip ends higher up. Cows of the second order give sixteen
quarts, and milk seven months.

[Illustration]

The third order have a still more reduced escutcheon, the descending
strip terminating at the udder.

Cows of the third order give fourteen quarts, and milk six months.

[Illustration]

The fourth order have an escutcheon more broken in appearance, the two
side lines of the selvage terminate half way to the vulva, and end off in
lines of a feathery appearance, the hair is coarser and more furry.

Cows of the fourth order give ten quarts, and milk five months.

[Illustration]

Bastards of the sixth class have the escutcheon similar to the first
class, but the selvage lines terminate on each side of the vulva in tufts
of coarse and bristly hair; the larger and coarser they are, the sooner
the milk will fail.


The Seventh Class. Demijohn.

[Illustration]

The first order of this class has the skin of the escutcheon of yellowish
color. The udder is fine, and covered with a silky down to the inside of
the thighs; and the dandruff is soft and oily to the touch. The shape
is similar to the selvage somewhat, only the vertical mirror rises
broader and straighter, and ends half way up to the vulva, cut square
off. The broader and higher this part is, the better the escutcheon. The
escutcheon is not so high up on the thighs as the previous classes. There
are two ovals on the udder, and two small tufts of fine hair alongside
the vulva.

Cows of the first order give seventeen quarts, and milk eight months.

[Illustration]

The second order have the escutcheon lower down and, of course, smaller
in every way. There are two tufts alongside the vulva, the left one as
large as in the first order, (two and a half inches,) the right one only
half as long. There is one oval on the left of the udder.

Cows of the second order give fifteen quarts, and milk seven months.

[Illustration]

The third order escutcheon is of different shape, the lines converging
downwards from the vertical mirror, which is short, and cut off square.
The right side frequently has a curved line from the descending hair
invading it. The vulva tufts are longer than in the second order.

Cows of the third order give thirteen quarts, and milk six months.

[Illustration]

The fourth order has the escutcheon still smaller. The tufts alongside
the vulva are not so plain, but the hair is coarse and bristly. There is
a triangular invasion on the right of the escutcheon.

Cows of the fourth order give ten quarts and milk five months.

[Illustration]

The Bastards of this class have a good escutcheon, but the tufts are
large and of coarse, bristly hair, and will fail according to the size.


The Eighth Class. Square Escutcheon.

[Illustration]

The first order of this class have the same yellowish color on the
escutcheon as other first orders; the udder is flexible, covered with a
short, fine down. The escutcheon is much of the shape of the Demijohns,
but the vertical, as it rises, branches square off to the left, and
ascends, straight and narrow, to the left side of the vulva. There are
two ovals on the udder. The more the square approaches the vulva, and the
finer the hair, the greater quantity is there of milk. Cows of the first
order give seventeen quarts, and milk eight months.

The second order have a similar escutcheon, only smaller in every way.
They have two ovals on the udder, and a small tuft to the right of the
vulva.

[Illustration]

Cows of the second order give fifteen quarts, and milk seven months.

[Illustration]

The third order have the escutcheon still smaller; the lines curving
downward at the corners; one oval on the udder, and the tuft to the right
of the vulva, larger and of coarser hair.

Cows of the third order give thirteen quarts, and milk six months.

[Illustration]

The fourth order have the escutcheon much smaller, the square is much
lower, and the upper part of it is formed of bristly hair, and feathery
looking; as is also the tuft to the right. On the right side of the
escutcheon is an invasion of triangular shape.

Cows of the fourth order give ten quarts, and milk five months.

[Illustration]

The Bastards of the eighth class are distinguished from those of the
first order by the tuft on the right, which is of coarse and bristly
hair, and the square terminates also in the same hair.


The Ninth Class. Limousines.

The escutcheons of this class, in ascending toward the vulva, do so in
the shape of a spire, but stop short about half way.

[Illustration]

The first order has the escutcheon of yellowish color, with flexible
udder, covered with hair downy and silky. The shape is the same as the
seventh and eighth class, except that the vertical escutcheon ends in a
sharp point, like a spire or arrow head. There are tufts along each side
of the vulva, and two ovals on the udder.

Cows of the first order give fifteen quarts, and milk eight months.

[Illustration]

The second order is similar in the escutcheon, but smaller, with but one
oval on the udder, and the vulva tufts larger, the left being longer than
the right.

Cows of the second order give thirteen quarts, and milk seven months.

[Illustration]

The third order is again smaller; the corners rounded downward; the tufts
larger; no oval on the udder.

Cows of the third order give ten quarts, and milk six months.

[Illustration]

The fourth order same shape as the last, but still smaller and more
rounding. The vulva tufts are of bristly hair, and the left one is seven
inches long.

Cows of the fourth order give eight quarts, and milk five months.

[Illustration]

The Bastards of the ninth class have a good escutcheon, but are
distinguished by the large tufts of coarse, bristly hair alongside the
vulva.


The Tenth Class.—Horizontal.

[Illustration]

The first order have a dandruff of yellowish color; the hair is short,
fine, and silky; the escutcheon is lower down from the vulva than the
other classes, and is cut off by a horizontal line. There are two ovals
on the udder; and two tufts, about three and one half inches long, on the
sides of the vulva.

Cows of the first order give thirteen quarts, and milk eight months.

[Illustration]

The second order has a smaller escutcheon; the vulva tufts are larger,
the right shorter than the left; there is but one udder oval; in several
of the orders of this class there is a small streak of ascending hair
directly below the vulva.

Cows of the second order give ten quarts, and milk seven months.

[Illustration]

The third order have still smaller escutcheons; larger vulva tufts, the
one on the left of bristling hair, four to five inches in length. The
descending hair encroaches on the escutcheon on the right in a triangular
shape.

Cows of the third order give eight quarts, and milk six months.

[Illustration]

The fourth order have still smaller escutcheons; larger and coarser vulva
tufts; and an invasion on the escutcheon on the right in triangular
shape, and on the left of semi-circular shape.

Cows of the fourth order give seven quarts, and milk five months.

[Illustration]

The bastards of the tenth class have the escutcheons large and good
shaped; but are distinguished by the tufts alongside the vulva, these
tell how long she will milk, by their size and the grade of the hair on
them.


Effects of Crossing two Escutcheons.

CROSS BETWEEN THE SELVAGE AND LEFT FLANDERS.—The cows bearing this
character are easily recognizable in certain breeds, and notably on those
of the north-east of France.

[Illustration]

CROSS BETWEEN THE BICORN AND SELVAGE.—The _Epi_, or tuft, which I termed
_jonctif_, or mesian tuft, and which is seen adhering under the vulva,
is a favorable sign, and can be met with in those classes where the
escutcheon does not reach as high as the vulva.

[Illustration]

Cows which bear one or the other of these two escutcheons, are generally
good milkers, and preserve their milk as well as cows of the first order
of each class. These are the new escutcheons alluded to in Guenon’s
introduction, showing the effect of crossing.




ESCUTCHEONS ON BULLS.


Guenon applied his discovery to bulls to great advantage. He found that
bulls belonged to the same classes as cows, and had escutcheons similar,
but much smaller; these extend from the testicles upward toward the anus.
The importance of having a good bull becomes apparent when we reflect
that he “gets” from fifty to one hundred, annually, while the cow is
impregnated but once in the year. The escutcheons of the progeny of a cow
with good escutcheon will be much improved if the cow is coupled with a
bull well marked, and particularly if his escutcheon is the same as that
of the cow. Better have the two of different breeds, but of similar or
good escutcheons, than to have the bull with inferior escutcheon.

Of course, the higher up the escutcheon extends on a bull, and the
broader it is, the better it is, but we must not look for bulls to be
so well-marked as cows are, for they never are. To distinguish the
bastard bulls from the good ones, observe if there are any streaks of
descending hair, and mixing so as to be bristly. This indication will be
a certain one in proportion to the size of the blemish, and as that is in
proportion to the whole escutcheon.

Guenon says: After having described, as I have done, all the classes of
cows, and taught to recognize the bastards, I pass to the characteristic
signs of the bulls re-producers, which can also be divided into orders
and classes; the signs are the same as for the females, but they are much
more restricted and of less extent.

With the males the escutcheon commences on the inside below the hams and
extends as far as the middle of the posterior surface of the leg, and
extends sometimes even to the anus of the superior orders in certain
classes.

Like that of cows, the escutcheon of bulls is modified by tufts.

The bulls whose escutcheons are similar in their form and size to cows of
the first order, possess a great ability for procreating good milk cows,
those on the contrary whose escutcheons are but little developed, produce
only those of poor yield.

A bull will be well marked, and a good reproducer when there is no
interruption of descending hair in the ascending hair on the escutcheon;
when the shape of the escutcheon is of large dimensions in proportion to
the size of the animal, and it is covered with very fine hair.

The bulls of which the escutcheon is small and covered with coarse hair
and irregular on the sides procreate bad milk cows, which give serous
milk.

[Illustration: Escutcheon of Guernsey Bull RADLEY.

No. 209, A. G. H. B.]

All interruptions in the ascending hair of the escutcheon by
encroachments of the descending hair on the right or left, in the lower
part of the thigh, indicate for their get a lower grade, and at a glance
the inferiority of the milk production.

The yellow or nankeen color of the skin of the escutcheon is always a
favorable sign.

The good reproducing bull will prove fecund until ten or fifteen years of
age, but it is a rare exception.

Any one may be grossly deceived if he judges only by the appearance or
the shape of the prolific qualities of a bull. Experience or observation
alone can show that he has maintained his early ability.

A vigorous bull, well fed, can serve one or more cows each day, but it
is of great importance that he shall not commence to serve until he is
fifteen or eighteen months old, otherwise he will be speedily exhausted
and deformed. The improving mark of his cross and his vigor will be
speedily shortened.

When the bull has attained the age of two and a half or three years,
the form alters, the hind-quarters become attenuated, the front quarter
becomes much enlarged, his neck enlarges and thickens, &c.

About this time, whether he is castrated or whether he is “twisted,” he
preserves always the altered form of the bull, and is less sought for
work, and in less request for butchering.

When the operations of castration and twisting are done too late, the
animal has less predisposition to fatten; his flesh is harder and
tougher; he is, however, in appearance in the same conditions of age, of
quality, and of nourishment, as those castrated earlier.

Often bulls, whose character is docile and gentle, become wild and
furious when they are used to serve.

In certain regions, to tame them, they put a ring of iron in their nose;
in others, where the good use of these rings is not known, they are
obliged to castrate or twist them. This operation suffices, generally, to
control their passion; but, if not, they are sent to the butcher.


Classification of Bull Reproducers.

There are for bulls, as for cows, ten classes or families; each class
sub-divided into several orders, and each order comprises three grades,
high, medium, and low.

I only admit, in each class, three orders. If one wishes to proceed in
the application with more rigor, he will follow the sub-divisions of the
classification of the cows. I will designate the three orders of each
class by the denominations of good, medium, and bad.

The signs indicating the qualities which render the bull likely to beget
good milk cows are placed, like those of the female, on the posterior
parts. They start from the bag, and rise up to the anus, covering, also,
the genital parts, and the scrotum.

With bulls, the escutcheons start from the anterior part of the bag,
extending inside, and upon the hams, projecting on the thighs; from
there, the curved lines, obtuse or acute, following the class, joining to
the right or the left under the anus.

The escutcheon, in all its extent, is shown by the fineness of the hair,
and the skin; by the color, more or less yellow, of the epidermis, and of
the particles of dandruff which can be detached.

The characteristic secondary signs of the females will also be found in
the males.

Bulls, like cows, have four and, sometimes, six false teats, which are
found before the bag, in the direction of the navel. These teats are
small and short.

Starting from the bag, one notices to the right and the left of the
stomach two veins resembling the two milk veins of cows. They are
prolonged to and pass a little in the direction of the navel, and
terminate in a small cavity.

Independent of the characteristic signs indicated above, the bull
re-producers should unite all the essential conditions which in each
locality constitute the type of the pure race. These conditions are:

1. The color of the hide preferred in that country.

2. A size proportioned to the race that they are to continue. A shape and
a frame usually accepted.

3. To be of the first order in each class, easily showing the power of
transmitting milking qualities.

4. Aptitude for fattening.

5. To be good for work.

6. To have a docile and patient character.

The evils of conformation, like the good qualities, are transmitted
generally by the act of generation. If it does not have the ability to do
this, one should quickly correct it.

Here the bovine race has been much neglected in all these respects. A
judicious choice, and a scrupulous attention is not always prevalent in
selecting a breeding animal; thus it results in a fatal re-generation, to
which it is time to put a stop.

Before giving the distinctive characteristics of the ten classes of
bulls, it will be useful to mention those classes which are oftener met
in French and foreign races; and also those which are more rare.

The classes which are most distributed, and which present the greatest
number of bulls, are in all races these three classes: 1. The
Curved-line; 2. The Limousine; 3. The Horizontal.

The classes on the contrary, which present but a very small number of
subjects are in the following order:

    4. Demijohn.
    5. Bicorne.
    6. Square-cut.
    7. Selvage.
    8. Left Flanders.
    9. Double Selvage.
    10. Flanders.

[Illustration: GUERNSEY BULL RADLEY, No. 209.

PROPERTY OF S. C. KENT, WEST GROVE, PA.]

The reason one finds so few good breeding bulls belonging to the first
class, is first, the small number of such animals compared to that
of cows; and next, the lack of knowledge of the best ones to keep.
Oftentimes for want of this knowledge, the best bulls were castrated for
oxen or for fattening, thus by chance, the poorest are often kept.

The best individuals have generally at birth, all the qualities which
characterize a superior animal. They are easily kept and fattened, for
the reason that their mother has much milk, and are soon ready for the
butcher. Inferior animals, on account of a smaller supply of milk, are
thin, and often malicious, of little value, and remain oftener in the
hands of the owner. Thus are sacrificed the good bulls, and the bad are
kept. Therefore, always select the choicest when they are young, to
improve the race.

It will thus be seen, Guenon divided his bulls into three classes: The
good, the mediocre, and the bad. He also divided them into three sizes:
The high, the medium, and the low. But he makes no difference between the
three sizes of bulls in his description of the escutcheon. He describes
each one of the three principal orders, leaving to the practitioner to
determine the intermediate degrees between the good and the mediocre, and
between the mediocre and the bad.

We do not repeat his descriptions, as they are based upon those of the
cows of the same classes, and the engravings tell the whole story. We
reproduce the engravings of the good and mediocre. But very occasionally
is one of the “rare” ones observed, but he says the Curved-line is the
most usual, then the Limousine, and lastly the Horizontal. What we
give is quite sufficient for all practical purposes. We advise all to
carefully select their breeding animal, which will, in most cases, be
from among what he calls the “mediocre.”

[Illustration: _Class I.—Flanders Bull._]

[Illustration: _Class II.—Left Flanders Bull._]

[Illustration: _Class III.—Selvage Bulls._]

[Illustration: _Class IV.—Curveline Bulls._]

[Illustration: _Class V.—Bicorn Bulls._]

[Illustration: _Class VI.—Double Selvage Bulls._]

[Illustration: _Class VII.—Demijohn Bulls._]

[Illustration: _Class VIII.—Square Bulls._]

[Illustration: _Class IX.—Limousine Bulls._]




REPORT OF THE PENNSYLVANIA GUENON COMMISSION.


At the annual meeting of the Board held January 2, 1878, it was

“_Resolved_, That the president of the Board (His Excellency Governor
John F. Hartranft) be authorized and requested to appoint a commission of
experts, who shall inquire into and report upon the reliability of the
Guenon or escutcheon theory for selecting milking stock; said report to
be made to the secretary of the Board on or before the 1st of November
next.”

In accordance with this request, His Excellency Governor Hartranft issued
the following commission:


                                      COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
                   EXECUTIVE CHAMBER, HARRISBURG, _April 24, 1878_.

    To GEORGE BLIGHT, Esq., _of the city of Philadelphia_; CHALKLEY
    HARVEY, Esq., _of the county of Delaware_, and WILLIS P.
    HAZARD, Esq., _of the county of Chester_:

    GENTLEMEN: I have the honor to inform you that you have been
    duly appointed a committee by the State Board of Agriculture to
    investigate and test “The Guenon Milk Escutcheon Theory,” and
    report the result thereof to the secretary of said Board.

                                            JNO. F. HARTRANFT,
                             _Governor and President of the Board_.


                                                _November 1, 1878._

    To the Honorable JNO. F. HARTRANFT,
    _Governor and President of the Board of Agriculture_:

    YOUR EXCELLENCY: In compliance with the commission tendered us,
    we beg leave most respectfully to report that we have visited a
    number of herds and have examined two hundred cows, the result
    of which is herewith submitted.

    Having performed to the best of our ability the duty assigned
    us, we beg leave to be discharged from further consideration of
    the question.

    Respectfully yours,

                                  GEORGE BLIGHT, _Philadelphia_,
                                  CHALKLEY HARVEY, _Chad’s Ford_,
                                  WILLIS P. HAZARD, _West Chester_.

The Pennsylvania Guenon Commission having been appointed “to investigate
and test the Guenon or Milk Escutcheon theory, and report the result
thereof,” respectfully report that they have examined two hundred
cows, heifers, and bulls, and the result of their examinations has
been to convince themselves and others of the merits of the system, of
its exceeding value to the practical farmer; and they believe that if
generally followed for twenty years, the value of the neat cattle of the
State would be increased vastly, the amount of milk and butter produced
would be much larger, and the quality of both articles better, while the
quality of the meat would be improved. Having believed in and practised
the system for many years, they would add that their recent extended and
careful examinations and contact with a number of owners of all grades of
stock, has tended to confirm them more thoroughly in their belief. As an
adjunct to previous knowledge to assist purchasers or breeders of cattle
in getting or raising the best, and weeding out the poorest, they think
it is worthy of being acquired by every farmer. And they would recommend
their fellow farmers not to be dismayed at the apparent difficulties
to be surmounted in obtaining a knowledge of the system, as it is only
absolutely necessary to acquire a knowledge of the first four orders
of each class, and a few other points, to practically apply it, as all
animals below those grades are not worthy of being kept. Any intelligent
man can readily master the system, and soon become proficient in it by
practice. This knowledge, applied with the tests heretofore usually used,
will enable any one to become a good judge of cattle.

The manner of making up their account of each animal is to examine the
escutcheon and the udder, from which they place her in the class and
order nearest to those delineated by Guenon, and then estimate the
quantity, quality, and time that she will milk. These estimates must be,
of course, only _approximate_, as they are based upon the indications of
the escutcheon, the size of the cow, and her probable condition. As it
is readily seen that where estimates are based upon what the cow should
do _within three months of her being fresh_, it would be impossible to
always grade the exact value of all the cows in a herd, each of which is
at a different period of gestation, or in a different condition or state
of health, and where also the cow is affected by the way in which she is
fed and cared for, by the season, by the state of the temperature, and
other circumstances. The estimates are based upon what the commission
thinks the cow would do when all the conditions are favorable to her
development, and where she is properly fed and cared for. A record is
made by the commission on the spot. An account of the qualities of each
head is drawn up by the owner. Each is made at separate times, and
without the knowledge of the other party. Then the two accounts are
copied off into parallel columns for comparison. If the accounts agree in
seventy-five per cent. out of one hundred, it certainly must be presumed
the system has sufficient value to make it worthy of adoption by all
farmers and breeders. As every farmer knows the yield is much influenced
by the feed, the care, the exposure, and the treatment of the cows;
therefore, a certain amount of allowance must be made, for these various
things will so alter matters, that no one can tell to a quart, or a pound
of butter, or to the week in time of milking. In fact, every farmer knows
neither the owner himself, nor his man, can tell to a quart how much
his cow or cows actually give, unless a daily record is kept every day
of every year. For even if he does keep such a record, he will find the
various circumstances named above affecting the quantities in his record.
Therefore the earnest seeker after truth, comparing the statements
made in the two columns, must not expect the two to tally without some
variations. The true spirit with which he must examine these statements,
will suggest itself in the question: Is this a system by which I can
judge of the value and quantities of a cow correctly? Is this a system
that will tell me the points of a cow, good or bad, more correctly than
by any other method? Let the candid inquirer weigh these statements,
and think if he knows of any method by which he can go into a herd and
surely pick out the best cows, and leave the poor ones to those who judge
not by this system. Every farmer has his own mode of judging, but take
the shrewdest and most practiced, can he avoid often the bastards? What
the commission find they can do, is that in a large majority of the
percentage of cases, they will give a good estimate of the qualities of
any animal. Their opinions of the time a cow will go, is based upon what
they think should be the treatment of all cows, viz.: that every cow
should have a rest of from four to six weeks, at least.

[Illustration: JERSEY COW NIOBE, H. R. 99.—Owned by Samuel J. Sharpless,
Philadelphia.

Was awarded First Prize as the BEST Cow at the Centennial, 1876.]


The Commission at Barney’s Farm.

The members of the Guenon commission, visited the farm of John B. Barney,
on the 9th of May, 1878, and examined twelve cows, mostly Grade Durhams,
Grade Jerseys, and farm stock, and they were uniformly successful in
judging of said stock, with some difference of opinion on two of them.

    “I was present at the examination of twelve cows of my herd,
    and think the committee were so uniformly successful in
    judging of the merits of the different cows, with such slight
    variations of opinion between us, as to increase my belief in
    the Guenon system being of great advantage to the farmers in
    selecting stock.

                                            JOHN B. BARNEY.
                                   _Chadd’s Ford, Chester county_.”

    _May 16, 1878._


The Commission at Sharpless’ Farm.

The commission visited the fine farm and herd of Jersey cows of Samuel
J. Sharpless, at Street Road station, West Chester railroad, May 10.
Present. Messrs. Harvey, Blight, Hazard, and Thomas J. Edge.

  SAM’L J. SHARPLESS’ HERD OF      |SAM’L J. SHARPLESS’ HERD AS
    JERSEYS, AS REPORTED BY E. J.  |  REPORTED UPON BY GUENON
    DURNALL, HERDSMAN FOR S. J. S.,|  COMMISSION OF THE STATE,
    MAY 10, 1878.                  |  MAY 10, 1878.
                                   |
  _No. 1._—Seven years.            |_No. 1._—Curveline cow, second order.
    Quantity, about 12 quarts      |  Quantity, if 14 quarts, doing well.
      a day.                       |
    Quality, medium.               |  Quality, good.
    Milks about 10 months.         |  Will milk ten months out of twelve.
                                   |
  _No. 2._—Thirteen years.         |_No. 2._—Flanders cow, third order.
    Quantity, best. Gives 24 quarts|  Quantity, 16 quarts first three
      3 months after calving.      |    months.
    Quality, second rate. Has made |  Quality, third rate.
      11¼ pounds in a week.        |
    Milks full up to time, except  |  Dry two months.
      when she had twin calves.    |
                                   |
  _No. 3._—Eleven years.           |_No. 3._—Flanders cow, third order.
    Quantity, medium.              |  Quantity, 12 quarts; three months.
    Quality, best.                 |  Quality, very good and rich.
    Would go to her time.          |  Dry six weeks.
                                   |
  _No. 4._—Eight years.            |_No. 4._—Flanders cow, second order.
    Quantity, medium.              |  Quantity, 14 quarts.
    Quality, good; makes about 10  |  Quality, very fine.
      pounds.                      |
    Up to her time.                |  Well up to her time.
                                   |
  _No. 5._—Imported. Eleven years. |_No. 5._—Selvage cow, first order.
    Quantity, about 17 to 18       |  Quantity, best; about 18 quarts.
      quarts a day.                |
    Quality, best; makes 11 pounds |  Quality, no question.
      per week.                    |
    Up to her time.                |  Milks up to her time.
                                   |
  _No. 6._—Ten years.              |_No. 6._—Flanders cow, first order.
    Quantity, second rate.         |  Superior milker.
    Quality, medium.               |  Quality, second class.
    About two months short of her  |  Milks up to her time; say six weeks.
      time.                        |
                                   |
  _No. 7._—Two years old. Had only |_No. 7._—Curveline cow, second order.
      first calf.                  |
    Quantity, medium.              |  Quantity, medium.
    Quality, good.                 |  Quality, too young for quality; say
                                   |    good.
    Not fairly tested for time.    |  Time, too young for test.
                                   |
  _No. 8._—Four years.             |_No. 8._—Selvage cow, second order.
    Quantity, medium.              |  Quantity, medium.
    Quality, first class.          |  Quality, good.
    Up to calving.                 |  Up to her time; say six weeks.
                                   |
  _No. 9._—From Niobe Third. Three |_No. 9._—Flanders cow, second order.
      years.                       |
    Quantity, first rate.          |  Quantity, first class.
    Quality, first rate.           |  Quality, first class.
    Up to her time.                |  Well up to her time.
                                   |
  _No. 10._—Imported. Four years.  |_No. 10._—Decided to pass her.
      Had first calf at Centennial,|
      in October, and made in seven|
      days, 9 pounds 10 ounces.    |
    Quantity, about 16 quarts.     |
    Quality, excellent.            |
    Up to time. Has been milking   |
      two years.                   |
                                   |
  _No. 11._—Ten years.             |_No. 11._—Horizontal cow.
    Quantity, second highest of    |  Quantity, first-class.
       herd; best.                 |
    Quality, second class. Makes   |  Quality, inferior.
      about 10 pounds.             |
    Full up to her time.           |  Milk up to eight months.
                                   |
  _No. 12._—Four years.            |_No. 12._—Flanders cow, third order.
    Quantity, second rate.         |  Quantity, light.
    Quality, second rate; about 7  |  Quality, third class.
      pounds.                      |
    Milks to three months of her   |  Three months short of her time.
      time.                        |
                                   |
  _No. 13._—Six years.             |_No. 13._—Flanders cow, number two
                                   |    order.
    Quantity, number one.          |  Quantity, second class.
    Quality, number one.           |  Quality, first class.
    Full up to time.               |  Up to her time.
    At seven months from calf      |
      gives 16 quarts.             |
                                   |
  _No. 14._—Five years.            |_No. 14._—Flanders cow, first order.
    Quantity, promises fair.       |  Quantity, good.
    Quality, good.                 |  Quality, fair.
                                   |  Within a month of her time.
                                   |
  _No. 15._—Four years. Of Niobe   |_No. 15._—Flanders cow, second order.
      stock, the poorest.          |
    Quantity, third rate; 6 quarts.|  Quantity, about 12 quarts.
    Quality, good; second rate.    |  Quality, not very fine.
    Up to her time.                |
    Dropped her calf.              |
                                   |
  _No. 16._—Quantity, number one.  |_No. 16._—Selvage cow, first order.
    Quality, number one.           |  First class every way.
    Up to her time.                |
                                   |
  _No. 17._—First calf.            |_No. 17._—Flanders cow, second order.
    Quantity, number one.          |  Quantity and quality, fair.
    Quality, number one.           |

The commission and Mr. Durnall agree as to the best cow, selected from
the first six on this list—on the one side by the marks, and on the other
from his knowledge.

    “Having compared the annexed account of the qualities of
    the seventeen cows of my herd, examined by the State Guenon
    Commission, with the originals of the accounts as given by both
    parties at separate times, and taken down upon the spot, I
    believe it to be a true and faithful transcript of the original
    record of the examination.

                                              SAMUEL J. SHARPLESS.”

    PHILADELPHIA, _May 20, 1878_.

    “I was present at the examination of Mr. Sharpless’ herd
    of Jerseys, made on the 10th of May by the State Guenon
    Commission, and having examined the accounts of the herd given
    by me, as hereto annexed, with the original entries of those
    given by me, and also the accounts of the commission, with
    the original written opinions, do certify that the annexed
    are faithful transcripts of the records made by each party at
    separate times, and that the statements were unknown to each
    other.

                                           E. J. DURNALL,
                               _Herdsman for Samuel J. Sharpless_.”

    LENAPE FARM, _May 20, 1878_.


The Commission at Strode’s Farm.

The members of the Guenon Commission visited the dairy farm of Marshall
Strode & Son, who have a large butter factory, and are celebrated for
their first-class butter, and they examined seventeen head of grade dairy
stock, and according to the testimony of Mr. Strode, who accompanied them
in their examination, were successful in judging according to the Guenon
system, fifteen cows out of seventeen examined. Viewed May 10.

Present, Messrs. Harvey, Blight, Hazard, and Edge.

    “Having been present when the members of the Guenon Commission
    examined seventeen of our herd, and having witnessed the
    accuracy with which they determined the quality of the stock
    inspected, we bear testimony to the fact that their judgment
    was correct, according to our experience with the cows, in
    fifteen cases out of seventeen, and even in these two they were
    partially successful. And we are more confirmed in our previous
    belief in the value of the system, as we never buy a cow for a
    good one that is not well marked. We run a dairy of seventy-one
    cows.

    Yours truly,

                                           MARSHALL STRODE & SONS.”

    EAST BRADFORD, _May 15, 1878_.


Examination of Thomas M. Harvey’s Stock of Jerseys and Guernseys, May 11,
1878.

    In this examination two cows which had already been examined
    and reported upon by the commission were, without their
    knowledge, afterwards brought up for another examination, in
    which their opinion as recorded, agreed almost exactly with the
    one previously recorded, thus affording a strong proof of the
    value of the system. See reports of No. 1, Betsy, and Nos. 4
    and 20, Beauty. (Secretary of Board of Agriculture.)

This herd is one of the finest in the State. The cows are kept in good
condition, and being well fed, the yield is very large per head. Their
product is first class butter, and should bring the highest price in the
market.

The commission examined, in addition to the twenty-five cows on this
list, Mr. Harvey’s Guernsey imported bull “Sir Champion,” which is
thoroughly well marked; perhaps, the best marked bull in the country. The
value of his get is, therefore, very decided. It shows most conclusively
the importance of a bull from good milking stock, and that he should have
a good escutcheon. The importance of a good sire to stamp his qualities
upon his descendants was conclusively proved by Mr. Harvey’s younger
stock. The commission examined a young bull of seven months age, which
was as perfectly and beautifully marked as his sire, and as nearly the
same shape escutcheon as his sire’s as could possibly be. Mr. Harvey has
since sold him for $100, to Colonel R. M. Hoe.

[Illustration: Escutcheon of Imported Guernsey Bull “Sir Champion.”]

Nos. 9½ and 9¾ prove also the gain to a herd from a well marked bull.
These were yearlings of Champion’s get. No. 9½ was a great improvement
upon the mother, No. 9, Carrie, of this list.

In the statements of the commission as to quantity, they have not
mentioned the number of quarts, as the amounts given by most of this herd
are superior to the generality, even of Guernseys; and, owing to good
selection and careful handling by their owner, the commission judge that
the number of quarts would be larger than usual.

  STOCK OF THOMAS M. HARVEY.       |STOCK OF THOMAS M. HARVEY. OPINION
    THOMAS M. HARVEY’S STATEMENT.  |  OF THE GUENON COMMISSION.
                                   |
  _No. 1._—BETSEY.                 |_No. 1._—BETSEY.—Jersey. Curveline,
                                   |    No. 1.
    Quality, medium.               |  Quality, first rate.
    Quantity, 17 quarts.           |  Quantity, first rate.
    Never dry.                     |  Time of milking; up to her time.
                                   |  Second examination confirmed.
                                   |
  _No. 2._—NANCY.                  |_No. 2._—NANCY.—Guernsey. Flanders
                                   |    No. 2.
    Quality, first rate.           |  Quality, first rate.
    Quantity, 16 quarts.           |  Quantity, first rate.
    Will milk up to calving.       |  Six weeks.
                                   |
  _No. 3._—CLAUDE.                 |_No. 3._—CLAUDE.—Guernsey. Curveline,
                                   |    3d.
    Quality, first rate.           |  Quality, first-class for rich milk.
    Quantity, at first, 18 quarts; |  Quantity, not large.
      but at six months, 8 quarts. |
    Not inclined to go dry         |  Dry three months.
      altogether.                  |
                                   |
  _No. 4._—BEAUTY.—(Worth.)        |_No. 4._—BEAUTY.—(Worth.) Curveline,
                                   |    1st.
    Quality, first rate.           |  Quality, first class.
    Quantity, 20 quarts.           |  Quantity, large.
    Almost impossible to dry off.  |  Close to time.
                                   |  Rëexamined—See report No. 20.
                                   |
  _No. 5._—ZILLA.                  |_No. 5._—ZILLA.—Guernsey grade.
                                   |    Imperfect Selvage of low order.
                                   |    Irregularly marked.
    Quality, medium.*              |
    Quantity, 18 quarts.           |
    Never dry.                     |  Will milk well for few months only.
                                   |    A good shaped cow.
                                   |
  _No. 6._—CHERRY.                 |_No. 6._—CHERRY.—Half Jersey.
    Quality, good.                 |  Good milk.
    Quantity, 24 quarts.           |  Milks profusely, and keeps herself
    Will milk on.                  |    thin on account of it.
                                   |
  _No. 7._—ECHO.                   |_No. 7._—ECHO.—Grade, Jersey. Selvage,
                                   |    2d.
    Quality, medium.               |  Quality, medium.
    Quantity, 20 quarts.           |  Quantity, medium.
    Does not go dry.               |  Milks up pretty well.
                                   |
  _No. 8._—MINNA.—Guernsey.        |_No. 8._—MINNA.—Guernsey. Curveline,
                                   |    2d.
    Quality, first rate.           |  Quality, good.
    Quantity, 17 quarts.           |  Quantity, good milker until within
    Not inclined to dry.           |    two months of calving.
                                   |
  _No. 9._—CARRIE.                 |_No. 9._—CARRIE.—Strangely and
                                   |    imperfectly marked.
    Quality, first rate.           |  Quality, good.
    Quantity, 10 quarts.           |  Quantity, poor.
    Will go dry two months.        |  Dry up soon.
                                   |
  _No. 10._—GENTLE.—Jersey.        |_No. 10._—GENTLE.—Jersey. Selvage, 1.
    Quality, first rate.           |  Quality, first rate.
    Quantity, 20 quarts.           |  Quantity, large
    Dry two months.                |  Dry six weeks.
                                   |
  _No. 11._—MARY.—Grade, Durham.   |_No. 11._—MARY.—Grade, Durham.
                                   |    Flanders, 1.
    Quality, medium.               |  Quality, first class.
    Quantity, 18 quarts.           |  Quantity, good.
    Dry two months.                |  Dry six weeks.
                                   |
  _No. 12._—EUGENIE.—Jersey.       |_No. 12._—EUGENIE.—Jersey. Curveline,
                                   |    2d.
    Quality, medium.*              |  Quality, first rate.
    Quantity, 18 quarts.           |  Quantity, large.
    Does not dry.                  |  Dry two months.
                                   |
  _No. 13._—VICTORIA.—Guernsey.    |_No. 13._—VICTORIA.—Guernsey. Selvage.
    Quality, medium.*              |  Quality, medium.
    Quantity, 20 quarts.           |  Quantity, good while she milks.
    No drying.                     |  Dry two months.
                                   |
  _No. 14._—JENNIE.                |_No. 14._—JENNIE. Ordinary stock.
    Quality, good.                 |  Quality, not very rich, but good.
    Quantity, 20 quarts.           |  Quantity, good.
    One month dry.                 |  Dry two months.
                                   |
  _No. 15._—MAGGIE, 2d.—Young.     |_No. 15._—MAGGIE, 2d.—Guernsey.
                                   |    Flanders, 3d.
    Quality, medium.*              |  Quality, very good.
    Quantity, 10 quarts.           |  Quantity, medium and continuous.
    Dry two months.                |  Dry two months.
                                   |
  _No. 16._—ROCKET.                |_No. 16._—ROCKET.—Grade, Jersey.
                                   |    Curveline, 2d.
    Quality, medium.               |  Quality, rich.
    Quantity, 15, 20, to 25 quarts;|  Quantity, good.
      variable.                    |
    Dry three months.              |  Dry two months.
                                   |
  _No. 17._—AMY.                   |_No. 17._—AMY.—Kentucky Short-Horn.
    Quality, good.*                |  Quality, medium.
    Quantity, 14 quarts.           |  Quantity, poor.
    Ten weeks dry.                 |  Dry three months.
                                   |
  _No. 18._—COMLY.                 |_No. 18._—COMLY.—Guernsey. Selvage, 3d.
    Quality, first rate.           |  Quality, first rate.
    Quantity, 15 quarts.           |  Quantity, good and continuous.
    Dry two months.                |  Dry six weeks.
                                   |
  _No. 19._—KITTY.                 |_No. 19._—KITTY.—Guernsey and Jersey
                                   |    grades. Bicorn, 2d.
    Quality, first rate.           |  Quality, first class.
    Quantity, 16 quarts.           |  Quantity, first class.
    Dry six weeks.                 |  Milks well up.
                                   |
  _No. 20._—BEAUTY.                |_No. 20._—BEAUTY.—Guernsey. Curveline,
                                   |    1st.
                                   |  Quality, first class.
                                   |  Quantity, first class. Milks well up.
    Second examination.            |  This is the second examination.
    See No. 4.                     |  See No. 4.
                                   |
  _No. 21._—ROSETTA.—Guernsey,     |_No. 21._—ROSETTA.—Guernsey, imported.
      imported.                    |    Flanders.
    Quality, first rate.*          |  Quality, excellent.
    Quantity, 18 quarts.           |  Quantity, fair milker.
    Does not go dry.               |  Dry two months.
                                   |
  _No. 22._—DUCHESS.—Guernsey.     |_No. 22._—DUCHESS.—Guernsey, imported.
                                   |    Curveline, 2d.
    Quality, first rate.           |  Quality, medium.
    Quantity, 20 quarts.           |  Quantity, large.
    Don’t go dry.                  |  Dry two months.
                                   |
  _No. 23._—BRIDGET.—Guernsey      |_No. 23._—BRIDGET. Guernsey grade.
      grade.                       |    Selvage, 4th.
    Quality, first rate.           |  Quality, good.
    Quantity, 14 to 18 quarts.     |  Quantity, poor.
    Fails when pregnant. Does not  |  Dry three months or ten weeks.
      dry altogether.              |
                                   |
  _No. 24._—FANCY.—Guernsey.       |_No. 24._—FANCY.—Guernsey. Selvage.
    Quality, medium.               |  Quality, medium.
    Quantity, 16 quarts, and fails |  Quantity, poor.
      fast.                        |
    Dry three months.              |  Dry two months.
                                   |
  _No. 25._—DAFFY.—Grade, Durham.  |_No. 25._—DAFFY.—Grade, Durham.
                                   |    Flanders, 1st.
    Quality, medium.               |  Quality, good.
    Quantity, 22 quarts.           |  Quantity, about 24 quarts.
    Does not dry.                  |  Milks her full time.

In the above account will be noticed a few with the mark * which Mr.
Harvey said indicates that the amount of milk given and the quality was
largely increased by extra feeding.

    “I was present at the examination of our herd of Guernseys,
    Jerseys, and grades, by the Guenon Commission, on the eleventh
    of fifth month, 1878, and I have examined their report and
    compared it with the originals written on the spot, (the
    contents of which were before now unknown to me,) and I
    testify to the annexed report being an accurate copy of the
    opinions recorded by them at the time of examination. The
    statements made by me were handed to members of the commission
    on twenty-first instant, and are as nearly accurate as my own
    knowledge, and that of the persons who had the immediate care
    of the herd, and an interest in the proceeds of the dairy,
    could make them.

                                                  THOS. M. HARVEY.”

    WEST GROVE, _27th of 5th month, 1878_.

    “Having had the immediate care of the herd of Thomas M. Harvey,
    and an interest in the proceeds of the dairy for six years, and
    being well acquainted with the merits of each member of the
    herd, I can certify that the statements we have made to the
    Guenon Commission are correct to the best of our knowledge and
    belief, and were made more than a week after the commission
    had recorded their opinions; which opinions were unknown to
    us until the present time. I have also compared the record of
    opinions herewith with the originals, and find them to be a
    correct transcript of them.

                                                   CLARKSON MOORE.”

    “Having had the immediate care of the herd within alluded to,
    and an interest in the proceeds thereof for the past eleven
    months, I can certify that I united with Clarkson Moore in
    making the statement relative to the quality and productiveness
    of the cows examined by the Guenon commission. I was from home
    when they were here, and knew nothing of their opinions when we
    made up our statement.

                                                   ZEBEDEE HAINES.”

    _Fifth month, 28th, 1878._

    “I was present on Saturday, March 11, 1878, at the farm of
    Thomas M. Harvey, when the examination of that portion of
    his herd was made by the Guenon Commission, from Nos. 10 to
    25, inclusive, of their report. I have compared the original
    recorded opinions of the commission with the report herewith,
    and find the latter correct.

                                     N. J. SHARPLES,
                        _President of the Experimental Farm Club_.”


Examination of William M. Large’s Herd, Chestnut Grove, Doylestown, Bucks
County.

The commission, as represented by George Blight and Willis P. Hazard,
visited the beautiful farm of William M. Large, on the afternoon of May
31—on a very rainy, unpleasant day, and making the examination of stock
a very difficult duty. The stock is a valuable one of thorough-bred and
grade Short-Horns and is well fed and otherwise well cared for.

  WM. M. LARGE’S ACCOUNT OF HIS    |OPINIONS OF THE STATE GUENON
    HERD.                          |  COMMISSION.
                                   |
  _No. 1._—VICTORIA.               |_No. 1._—VICTORIA.—Short-Horn.
                                   |    Flanders, first order.
    Quantity, 18 quarts.           |  Quantity, about eighteen quarts.
    Never tried her on butter but  |  Quality, good.
      once, then made 10¾ pounds.  |
    Goes dry two months to ten     |  Up to her time—say one month.
      weeks.                       |
                                   |
  _No. 2._—JOSEPHINE.              |_No. 2._—JOSEPHINE.—Thorough-bred
    The Doylestown Agricultural    |    Short-Horn. Flanders, second order.
      Society offered a premium of |
      $25 for the cow that yielded |
      the most butter; and also $25|
      for the cow that gave the    |
      most milk. The largest yield |
      for a single week 16 pounds  |
      3 ounces. Was tried five     |
      times during the year, two   |
      months apart; taking the     |
      average of the five          |
      consecutive trials, would    |
      make a trifle over 500       |
      pounds. Awarded the first    |
      premium for butter, and      |
      second for milk.             |
    Lost the record of pounds of   |  Quantity, eighteen quarts.
      milk.                        |  Quality, very good.
    Dry about one month.           |  About one month dry.
                                   |
  _No. 3._—FANNY FERN.             |_No. 3._—FANNY FERN.—Flanders, first
                                   |    order.
    Quantity, nineteen quarts.     |  Quantity, twenty quarts.
    Quality, never tried her butter|  Quality, first rate.
      production.                  |
   Goes dry five or six weeks.     |  About up to time, (one month.)
                                   |
  _No. 4._—LETTIE.                 |_No. 4._—LETTIE.—Selvage, fifth order.
    Quantity nine quarts.          |  Quantity, eight quarts.
    Quality, never tried her butter|  Quality, second rate.
      qualities, but her milk is   |
      rich and good.               |
    Goes dry about three months.   |  Dry four months.
                                   |
  _No. 5._—NORAH.                  |_No. 5._—NORAH.—Flanders, imperfect.
    Quantity, fresh, gives         |  Quantity, eighteen quarts.
      seventeen quarts; holds to   |
      it well.                     |
    Quality, has made 10 pounds    |  Quality, good.
      butter in a week.            |
    Goes dry about two months.     |  Dry three months.
                                   |
  _No. 6._—LUCY.                   |_No. 6._—LUCY.—Flanders, fourth.
    Quantity, thirteen quarts.     |  Quantity, fourteen quarts.
    Quality, a less number of      |  Quality, good, very.
      pounds will make a pound of  |
      butter than most of my other |
      cows; think her milk extra   |
      good.                        |
    Dry some two months.           |  Dry three months.
                                   |
  _No. 7._—BERNICE.                |_No. 7._—BERNICE.—Flanders, second.
    Quantity, when fresh, about    |  Quantity, twelve quarts.
      twelve quarts.               |
    Quality, never tried her       |  Quality, good.
      butter production.           |
    Goes dry some three months, and| Time, eight months out of twelve.
      has the credit of being the  |
      poorest cow in the herd.     |
                                   |
  _No. 8._—JOSEPHINE 2d.—First     |_No. 8._—JOSEPHINE 2d.—Curveline,
      calf.                        |    third.
    Quantity, first calf, eleven   |  Quantity, ten to twelve quarts.
      quarts.                      |
    Quality, never weighed her milk|  Quality, rich.
      or tried her butter          |
      production.                  |
    Cannot tell how long she will  | Goes to two months of her time.
      go dry.                      |
                                   |
  _No. 9._—JUDITH.                 |_No. 9._—JUDITH.—Flanders, first.
    Quantity, seventeen quarts.    |  Quantity, eighteen quarts.
    Quality, on a trial after her  |  Quality, good.
      first calf was taken away,   |
      made 2 ounces less than 8    |
      pounds of butter, done up in |
     lumps for market.             |
   Goes dry six or seven weeks.    | Well up to her time (one month or
                                   |   six weeks.)

    “Having been present at the examination of my herd of
    Short-Horns, by the State Guenon Commission, May 31, 1878, I
    certify this report is a correct copy of the original records
    made on the spot, and at separate times; neither party having
    knowledge of the other’s accounts.

                                                 WILLIAM M. LARGE.”

    CHESTNUT GROVE, _7th month, 3d, 1878_.


Report of the Examination of the Stock of Eastburn Reeder, of Rabbit Run
Stock Farm, New Hope, Bucks County, Pa.

The commission visited the farm of Eastburn Reeder on Saturday, June 1,
and examined his stock of Jersey and Guernsey breeds in presence of the
proprietor and a number of members of the Solebury Farmers’ Club. Mr.
Reeder’s account of his herd had been drawn up and placed in the hands of
J. S. Williams, Esquire, secretary of the Solebury Farmers’ Club, some
ten days before the visit of the commission, and is printed herewith.

The commission was represented by George Blight and Willis P. Hazard, and
part of the time by Captain J. C. Morris, of Susquehanna county, at the
request of Thomas J. Edge, secretary of the State Board.

Mr. Reeder, not having made in his report any statements of the quality
of the milk, except as regards the yield in butter, has sent the
commission the following condensed statement of what each cow gave on May
20:

    No. 1, Belle,                           10 quarts.
    No. 2, Topsy,                           14  ”
    No. 3, Firefly,                         12  ”
    No. 4, Isabelle,                         8  ”
    No. 5, Marian,                          14  ”
    No. 6, Urania,                          12  ”
    No. 7, Florentia,                       10  ”
    No. 8, Paunacussing,                     8  ”
    No. 9, Lady Delaware,                    6  ”
                                            --
        Total for nine cows,                94  ”
                                            ==
    Yield of the herd, May 20,              94 quarts.
    Yield of the herd in seven days,       658  ”
    Butter in seven days,                   67 pounds.
    Quantity of milk to one pound of butter, 9 55/67 qts.

This statement of the number of quarts required to make a pound of
butter from Jersey and Guernsey stock, it will be seen, carries out the
conclusions of the commission, who estimated the quality of this herd,
as well fed and not too long milked stock of these breeds should give a
pound of butter to every nine quarts of milk.

    “Having been present at the examination of my herd by the State
    Guenon Commission, on Saturday, June 1, 1878, and having since
    examined their report by the original record made on the spot
    by them, and compared it with my account of the herd, handed to
    Mr. J. S. Williams, May 21, or more than one week before they
    made the examination, I do certify that the accompanying report
    is correct and true.

                                            EASTBURN REEDER,
                                     _New Hope, Bucks county, Pa._”

    RABBIT RUN FARM, _June 15, 1878_.

    “I certify that Eastburn Reeder handed me his account of his
    herd ten days before the examination was made by the State
    Guenon Commission; that I was present with others at the
    examination; that the two reports were compared in the presence
    of a number, shortly after the examination, and were generally
    satisfactory; and that I have now examined the accompanying
    reports by the two original records, made at separate times as
    above mentioned, and have found them correct and true copies of
    said original records.

                                        J. S. WILLIAMS,
                        _Secretary of the Solebury Farmers’ Club_.”

    _June 15, 1878._


Examination of Eastburn Reeder’s Herd.

  ACCOUNTS OF THE HERD BY EASTBURN |OPINIONS OF THE HERD BY THE GUENON
    REEDER.                        |  COMMISSION.
                                   |
  _No. 1._—BELL.—Age, 12 years.    |_No. 1._—BELL.—Grade, Alderney.
      Grade, Alderney. Calved      |    Flanders, 2d.
      November 10, 1877.           |
    Greatest yield when fresh, 16  |  Quantity, 18 to 20 quarts.
      quarts per day. Yield May 20,|
      1878, 10 quarts per day.     |
      Butter, 8 pounds in seven    |
      days.                        |
    Tried February, 1875.          |  Quality, fair.
    Milks to one month of calving. |  Dry three to four months.
                                   |
  _No. 2._—TOPSY.—Age, 10 years.   |_No. 2._—TOPSY.—Guernsey. Curveline,
      Guernsey. Calved March 9,    |    2d.
      1878.                        |
    Greatest yield when fresh, 18  |  Quantity, 16 to 18 quarts.
      quarts. Yield May 20, 1878,  |
      14 quarts. Made 12 pounds in |
      seven days.                  |
    Tried June, 1872.              |  Quality, first rate.
    Goes dry three months before   |  Dry two months.
      calving.                     |
                                   |
  _No. 3._—FIREFLY, (1133.)—Age,   |_No. 3._—FIREFLY.—Jersey thorough-bred.
      8 years. Jersey. Calved      |    Demijohn, 2d. Daughter of Niobe,
      October 28, 1877.            |    3d.
    Greatest yield when fresh, 14  |  Quantity, 12 to 14 quarts.
      quarts. Yield May 20, 1878,  |
      12 quarts. Averaged 6 pounds |
      butter for forty weeks, from |
      Sept. 1, 1872, to June 8,    |
      1873. Greatest yield of      |
      butter in any one week since,|
      10½ pounds.                  |
                                   |  Quality, medium.
    Never goes dry; has been milked|  Dry two months.
      regularly since August 27,   |
      1872.                        |
                                   |
  _No. 4._—ISABELLE, (1935.)—Age,  |_No. 4._—ISABELLE.—Jersey thorough-bred
      6 years. Jersey. Calved      |    Flanders, 3d.
      September 19, 1877.          |
    Greatest yield when fresh, 12  |  Quantity, 16 quarts.
      quarts. Yield May 20, 1878,  |
      8 quarts. Made 9 pounds      |
      butter in seven days.        |
    Tried October, 1877.           |  Quality, first rate.
    Milks to one month of calving. |  Dry one month.
                                   |
  _No. 5._—MARIAN.—Age, 6 years.   |_No. 5._—MARIAN.—Guernsey. Curveline,
      Guernsey. Calved February 15,|    3d.
      1878.                        |
     Greatest yield when fresh,    |  Quantity, 16 quarts.
       14 quarts. Yield May 20, 14 |
       quarts.                     |
     Butter never been tested.     |  Quality, first rate.
     Milks to within one month of  |  Dry two months to three months.
       calving.                    |
                                   |
  _No. 6._—URANIA, (2793.)—Age,    |_No. 6._—URANIA.—Jersey thorough-bred.
      5 years. Jersey. Calved      |    Selvage, 2d.
      January 30, 1878.            |
    Greatest yield when fresh,     |  Quantity, 14 quarts.
      12 quarts. Yield May 20, 12  |
      quarts.                      |
    Butter never been tested.      |  Quality, second rate.
    Milks to one month of calving. |  Dry one month.
                                   |
  _No. 7._—FLORENTIA, (3518.)—Age, |_No. 7._—FLORENTIA.—Jersey
      4 years. Jersey. Calved      |    thorough-bred. Curveline, 2d.
      January 1, 1878.             |
    Greatest yield, 10 quarts.     |  Quantity, 12 quarts.
      Yield May 20, 10 quarts.     |
    Butter never been tested.      |  Quality, second rate.
    Milks to one month of calving. |  Dry one month.
                                   |
  _No. 8._—PAUNACUSSING,           |_No. 8._—PAUNACUSSING.—Jersey
      (5050.)—Age, 2 years. Jersey.|    thorough-bred. Selvage, 2d.
      Calved October 30, 1877.     |
    Yield, May 21, 1878, 8 quarts. |  Quantity, 12 quarts.
                                   |  Quality, medium.
    Duration yet to be ascertained.|  Dry two months, probably.
                                   |
  _No. 9._—LADY DELAWARE,          |_No. 9._—LADY DELAWARE.—Jersey
      (5051.)—Age, 2 years.        |    thorough-bred. Flanders, 3d.
      Thorough-bred Jersey. Calved |
      January 3, 1878.             |
    Yield May 21, 1878, 6 quarts.  |  Quantity, only milks out of two
                                   |    teats.
                                   |  Quality, medium.
    Duration yet to be ascertained.|  Dry three months, probably.


Examination of Moses Eastburn’s Cow, Beauty.

  ACCOUNT OF MOSES EASTBURN.       |OPINIONS OF THE COMMISSION.
                                   |
  COW, BEAUTY.—Age, 9 years.       |BEAUTY.—Jersey. Curveline, 2d.
      Calved March 20, 1878.       |
    Greatest yield of milk per day |  Quantity, 18 quarts.
      about 17 or 18 quarts. Yield |
      May 24, 1878, 16 quarts.     |
      Duration of yield of milk,   |
      ten months.                  |
    Quality of milk, 9 quarts to   |  Quality, first class.
      make a pound of butter.      |
      Butter made in eight and a   |
      half months, 302½ pounds.    |
                                   |  Time, well up to her time.

    “This is to certify that I was present at the examination of my
    cow, Beauty, this first of sixth month, 1878, by the committee
    to test the Guenon system, and find their report to correspond
    with the within statement.

                                                   MOSES EASTBURN.”

    SOLEBURY, BUCKS COUNTY.


Examination of Colonel James Young’s Herd, at Middletown.

The Commission visited the large farms of Colonel James Young, near
Middletown, and examined thirty-seven head of cows and heifers, among
which were some of the finest Jersey cows in the State. His whole stock
is well-fed and cared for, and are in fine condition. He supplies
Middletown with the best of milk. Colonel Young does not keep a record
of the performances of his cows, and the commission were therefore
obliged to examine the cows, and after making their record, to compare
it, item by item of each cow separately, with the knowledge of them had
by his very intelligent dairy-woman, who has charge of the cows and the
milk, and knows their characters as milk and butter producers well; also
has a record of the times of calving of all the cows. The estimates of
the commission agreed with hers, on all the hundred and eleven points,
except nine points, and where they differed, that difference was in two
cases on the quality, and in the other cases on the time. The commission
attribute their unanimity on this herd, to the careful selection and
breeding of Colonel Young, to his good feeding, and the excellent care
that the animals have. These points constantly looked after, maintain the
excellence of the herd, and as a consequence the escutcheons correspond,
for, as the colonel says, “he never saw a good escutcheon without being
on a good animal, and never saw a good animal without a good escutcheon.”


                                    MIDDLETOWN, _November 1, 1878_.

    “We were present when the commission visited our farms, and
    examined the stock, and we think they judged rightly of it, in
    nearly every case—we should say within five per cent. of being
    entirely correct.

    We have examined the account to be printed with the original
    record, and find it to be correct and corresponding.

                                                   JAMES YOUNG,
                                                   JAMES S. YOUNG.”


Examination of the Herd of William Calder, Esq., Harrisburg.

The commission visited one of the farms of William Calder, near
Harrisburg. This gentleman has seven farms, containing nine hundred
acres, and keeps a variety of stock. On the farm visited, near the
reservoir, the commission examined eight head of grade stock, in very
good order, on good September pasturage. The dairyman, a very intelligent
man, had no record of the exact quantity and quality of the stock, but,
as he milked them himself, a knowledge of their general qualities; and
upon hearing the decision of the commission upon each cow, assented to
the character given of all of them, except on two points: on one as to
yield, and on another as to time. It was pleasing to notice the surprise
and delight expressed by him at the exhibition, of entire strangers to
the herd, of such accurate knowledge of them as the system showed it
could give. And he determined to acquire it forthwith.

The commission saw a very fine black grade cow, with the calf by her side
a perfect specimen of the Belted stock, though sired by a thorough-bred
Jersey bull—to be accounted for only by the fact that the cow had been
served by a Belted bull the third time before this one.


Examination of Several Herds near West Grove, Blanketed and Unblanketed,
under the Supervision of a Committee of the Experimental Farm Club.

It had been stated by some that the commission used the ordinary means of
judging of the value of cows, in addition to the Guenon tests. This was,
of course, entirely denied by the commission; and as it was repeated in
the public print, the commission, to settle the matter in the minds of
candid men, offered to have any number of cows blanketed, so that only
their posteriors could be seen, and then judge of their escutcheons,
provided a committee should be present at the examination, view it
closely, and give a report. Thus pressed, the challenge was accepted, and
there was appointed a committee of five of some of the best farmers and
dairymen residing near the Experimental farm. It was also understood that
any could attend who wished to, and on the day of the examination three
of the committee were present, as well as a number of other farmers. The
commission examined the first five in the stable, blanketed, then two
unblanketed, then two blanketed, and the remaining four unblanketed. The
report of this committee is appended herewith. The cows were examined on
a farm of Thomas Gawthrop, near West Grove. Afterward a number of cows
were examined on several farms in the neighborhood, in the presence of
the committee. No longer time was required to form an opinion on the
blanketed cows than on the others, and the comparative results can be
judged from the accompanying tables.

The commission met them on the day appointed, at the farm of Thomas
Gawthrop, and in the presence of the committee (three being present,) and
of others, examined seven cows blanketed, and would have examined more,
but the committee said it was useless, as they could see, and had full
faith that only the escutcheon was considered by the commission. On this
farm thirteen head were examined, and the results are herewith given. All
then adjourned to the farms of Mark Hughes, Howard Preston, and Everard
Conard, and examined other stock in the presence of the committee. The
committee’s report will be found annexed, thus setting to rest the charge
that the commission were examining by any other than the Guenon test.

  THOMAS GAWTHROP’S ACCOUNT OF COWS|THE GUENON COMMISSION’S ACCOUNT OF
    EXAMINED AT THOMAS GAWTHROP’S  |  COWS EXAMINED AT THOMAS GAWTHROP’S
    FARM, SEPTEMBER 20.            |  FARM, SEPTEMBER 20.
                                   |
  _No. 1._—VICTORIA.—Grade, Jersey |_No. 1._—VICTORIA.*—Grade, Jersey and
      and Durham.                  |  Durham. Eight years.
    Quantity, first.               |  Quantity, first.
    Quality, first.                |  Quality, first.
    A first-class butter cow, and  |  Up to her time.
      milks well up to time.       |
                                   |
  _No. 2._—CECIL.—Grade, Jersey.   |_No. 2._—CECIL.*
    Quantity, first.               |  Quantity, first.
    Quality, first. First-class    |  Quality, first.
      for butter.                  |
    Milks up to time.              | Short eight weeks.
                                   |
  _No. 3._—NELLIE.                 |_No. 3._—NELLIE.*—Demijohn, 1.
    Quantity, second.              |  Quantity, second.
    Quality, second.               |  Quality, first.
    Dry from ten to twelve weeks.  | Short eight weeks.
                                   |
  _No. 4._—LUCY.—Recently          |_No. 4._—LUCY.*—Flanders, 2d.
      purchased.                   |
    Yields three months from       |  Quantity, second.
      calving thirteen quarts.     |
    Quality, first.                |  Quality, first.
                                   |  Up to her time.
                                   |
  _No. 5._—LILY.—Grade, Jersey.    |_No. 5._—LILY.*—Grade, Jersey.
                                   |    Flanders, 2d.
    Quantity, second.              |  Quantity, second.
    Quality, first.                |  Quality, first.
    Milks up to time.              |  Dry four to six weeks.
                                   |
  _No. 6._—BEAUTY.—Jersey.         |_No. 6._—BEAUTY.—Jersey. Five years
                                   |    old.
    Yields fourteen quarts per day.|  Quantity, third.
    Quality, first.                |  Quality, second.
    Milks to within eight weeks of |  Dry two months.
      calving.                     |
                                   |
  _No. 7._—DARBY.—Jersey.          |_No. 7._—DARBY.—Jersey. Flanders, 2d.
    Quantity, fourteen quarts per  |  Quantity, second.
      day.                         |
    Quality, first.                |  Quality, first.
    Almost impossible to turn dry, |  Dry four weeks.
      though never excelling in    |
      quantity.                    |
                                   |
  _No. 8._—STAR.—Grade, three      |_No. 8._—STAR.†—Grade, three quarter
      quarter Jersey.              |    Jersey. Flanders, 3d.
    Yield with first calf from     |  Quantity, second.
      twelve to fourteen quarts    |
      per day, and milks well up   |
      to time.                     |
    Quality, first class.          |  Quality, first.
                                   |  Dry six weeks.
                                   |  Her Jersey blood helps to overcome
                                   |    some blemishes on her escutcheon.
                                   |
  _No. 9._—NORAH.                  |_No. 9._—NORAH.†—Grade.
    Quantity, first,               |  Quantity, first.
    Quality, first.                |  Quality, first.
    Dry from eight to ten weeks.   |  Up to her time.
                                   |
  _No. 10._—SALLIE.‡               |_No. 10._—SALLIE.—Grade. Twelve years.
                                   |    Flanders, 2d.
    Quantity, second.              |  Quantity, 2d.
    Quality, second.               |  Quality, second.
    Goes dry eight weeks.          |  Up to her time.
                                   |
  _No. 11._—DIDO.‡—Grade.          |_No. 11._—DIDO.—Grade. Left Flanders.
    Quantity, twenty quarts.       |  Quantity, first.
    Second in quality.             |  Quality, second.
    Dry from eight to twelve weeks.|  Dry three months.
                                   |
  _No. 12_.—MOLLY.‡                |_No. 12._—MOLLY. Imperfect Flanders.
    Yields about sixteen quarts    |  Quantity, second.
      per day.                     |
    Second-class quality.          |  Quality, second.
    Dry from eight to twelve weeks.|  Dry ten weeks.
                                   |
  _No. 13._ WHITEFACE‡             |_No. 13._—WHITEFACE.—Grade. Curveline,
                                   |    3d.
    Second-class in quantity,      |  Quantity, third.
      fifteen quarts per day.      |
    Second quality.                |  Quality, second.
    Dry about ten weeks.           |  Dry ten weeks.

* These five cows were so blanketed, as to show only the escutcheon.

† These cows were also blanketed.

‡ The last four animals were not blanketed, but were driven up and
examined by the commission without any apparent reference to any marks,
except the escutcheon. T. G.

  MARK HUGHES’ ACCOUNT OF HIS COWS,|COMMISSION’S ACCOUNT OF MARK
    SEPTEMBER 20.                  |  HUGHES’ COWS.
                                   |
  _No. 1._—LACTE.                  |_No. 1._—LACTE.—Jersey thorough-bred.
                                   |    Flanders, second.
    Do not know the quantity of    |  Quantity and quality, first rate.
      milk and butter per week, but|
      gives very rich milk, and    |
      milks up to calving.         |  Milks close to calving.
                                   |
  _No. 2._ LAURA.                  |_No. 2._—LAURA.—Jersey thorough-bred.
                                   |    Demijohn, 1st.
    Quantity, twenty-four quarts   |  Quantity, first rate.
      milk per day.                |
    Quality, sixteen pounds butter |  Quality, first class.
      per week.                    |
    Has never been dry; begins to  |  Milks up to calving.
      increase in milk about three |
      weeks before calving, and    |
      cannot be turned dry.        |
                                   |
  _No. 3._—TOPSY.                  |_No. 3._—TOPSY.—Grade, Jersey. Ten
                                   |    years. Curveline, 1st.
    Quantity, twenty quarts milk   |  Quantity and quality, first rate.
      per day.                     |
    Quality, makes thirteen pounds |
      butter per week.             |
    Will milk up to calving.       |  Milks up to calving.

  HOWARD PRESTON’S ACCOUNT OF HIS  |GUENON COMMISSION’S ACCOUNT OF
    COWS.                          |  HOWARD PRESTON’S COWS, SEPTEMBER 20.
                                   |
  _No. 1._—Grade Durham.           |_No. 1._—Flanders, 2d.—Grade Durham.
    Quantity, second.              |  Quantity, second.
    Quality, second.               |  Quality, second.
    Milks up to her time.          |  Up to time.
                                   |
  _No. 2._—Grade Durham.           |_No. 2._—Left Flanders.—Grade Durham.
    Quantity, second.              |  Quantity, second.
    Quality, second.               |  Quality, second.
    Dry ten weeks.                 |  Dry two months.
                                   |
  _No. 3._—Common stock.           |_No. 3._—Grade stock.—Imperfect
                                   |    Flanders.
    Quantity, second.              |  Quantity, third.
    Quality, second.               |  Quality, second.
    Dry eight to ten weeks.        |  Dry eight weeks.
                                   |
  _No. 4._—Grade Durham.           |_No. 4._—Grade Durham.—Selvage, 2d.
    Quantity, third,               |  Quantity, second.
    Quality, second.               |  Quality, second.
    Dry ten weeks.                 |  Dry ten weeks.
                                   |
  _No. 5._—Common stock.           |_No. 5._—Native stock.—Flanders, 3d.
    Quantity, second.              |  Quantity, second.
    Quality, second.               |  Quality, third.
    Dry three months.              |  Dry three months.
                                   |
  _No. 6._—Grade Durham.           |_No. 6._—Grade Durham.—Flanders, 3d.
    Quantity, second.              |  Quantity, third.
    Quality, second.               |  Quality, third.
    Dry eight weeks.               |  Dry six to eight weeks.
                                   |
  _No. 7._—Grade Durham.           |_No. 7._—Grade Durham.—Bicorn, 3d.
    Quantity, second.              |  Quantity, third.
    Quality, third.                |  Quality, third.
    Dry ten weeks.                 |  Dry six to eight weeks.
                                   |
  _No. 8._—NELLY.—Grade Jersey.    |_No. 8._—NELLY.—Grade Jersey.—Flandrine
                                   |    a Gauche.
    Quantity, second.              |  Quantity, second.
    Quality, second.               |  Quality, second.
    Dry eight weeks.               | Time, eight weeks.
                                   |
  _No. 9._—JESSIE.—Grade Jersey.   |_No. 9._—JESSIE.—Grade Jersey.—Selvage.
    Quantity, second.              |  Quantity, second.
    Quality, second.               |  Quality, first.
    Milks up to time.              |  Up to time.
                                   |
  _No. 10._—POLLY.—Grade Jersey.   |_No. 10._—POLLY.—Grade
                                   |    Jersey.—Flanders, 2d.
    Quantity, first.               |  Quantity, second.
    Quality, first.                |  Quality, second.
    Milks up to her time.          |  Up to time.
                                   |
  _No. 11._—LILY.—Common stock.    |_No. 11._—LILY.—Native stock.—Flanders,
                                   |    2d.
    Quantity, first.               |  Quantity, first.
    Quality, first.                |  Quality, first.
    Dry eight weeks.               |  Dry four to six weeks.

  _No. 12._—BLUSH.—Grade Jersey    |_No. 12._—BLUSH.—Grade Jersey.
                                   |    Curveline, 2d.
    Quantity, first.               |  Quantity, second.
    Quality, first.                |  Quantity, second.
    Dry six weeks.                 |  Dry six weeks.
                                   |
  _No. 13._—TOPSY.—Grade Jersey.   |_No. 13._—TOPSY.—Imperfect
                                   |    Curveline.—Grade Jersey.
    Quantity, second.              |  Quantity, third.
    Quality, second.               |  Quality, second.
    Dry three months.              |  Dry three months.
                                   |
  _No. 14._—BONNIE.—Common stock.  |_No. 14._—BONNIE.—Flanders, 1st.—Native
                                   |    stock.
    Quantity, first.               |  Quantity, first.
    Quality, first.                |  Quality, second.
    Milks up to her time.          |  Up to her time.
                                   |
  _No. 15._—DAISY.—Common stock    |_No. 15._—DAISY.—Flanders, 3d.—Native
                                   |    stock.
    Quantity, third.               |  Quantity, third.
    Quality, second.               |  Quality, second.
    Dry three months or more.      |  Dry six weeks.
                                   |
  _No. 16._—KATIE.—Common stock.   |_No. 16._—KATIE.—Flanders, 2d.—Native
                                   |    stock.
    Quantity, third.               |  Quantity, second.
    Quality, second.               |  Quality, second.
    Dry six weeks.                 |  Dry four to six weeks.

  JOSEPH PYLE’S STATEMENT OF HIS   |GUENON COMMISSION’S ACCOUNT OF
    COWS:                          |  JOSEPH PYLE’S COWS:
                                   |
  _No. 1._—FAWN.                   |_No. 1._—RED GRADE COW—8
                                   |    years.—Flanders, 2.
    Quantity, 10 to 15 quarts.     |  Quantity, 14 or 15 quarts.
    Quality, very rich milk.       |  Quality, second.
    Dry from four to six weeks.    |  Dry about ten weeks.
                                   |
  _No. 2._—FANCY.                  |_No. 2._—FANCY.—Guernsey. Flanders, 3.
    Quantity, 16 to 18 quarts.     |  Quantity, 18 quarts when fresh, and
                                   |    will begin to reduce and stop
                                   |    two months short of her time.
    Quality, milk very good        |  Quality, first.
      quality.                     |
    Falls off sooner than most     |  Will go two months dry.
      cows, and will go dry eight  |
      weeks.                       |

This cow had been previously examined, May 11, at Thos. M. Harvey’s farm.
Mr. Harvey had since sold her to Mr. Pyle. The following are the two
statements at that time:

    T. M. HARVEY:                  |GUENON COMMISSION:
                                   |
    Quality, medium.               |  Quality, medium.
    Quantity, 16 quarts and fails  |  Quantity, poor.
      fast.                        |
    Dry three months.              |  Dry two months.


COMMISSION’S ACCOUNT OF MILTON E. CONARD’S COWS:

  _No. 1._—LILY.—Grade, Guernsey. Bicorn, 1.
    Quantity, about 20 quarts.
    Quality, first.
    Milks up to her time.

  _No. 2._—FLOYD.—Flanders, 1.
    Quantity, 18 quarts.
    Quality, very good.
    Milks up to her time.

    This is a very correct description of my cows, Lily and Floyd.

                                                      M. E. CONARD.

    The above examination of our herds of cows, some of which were
    covered by a large blanket, completely excluding from view
    every part of the animal except the escutcheon and back part of
    udder, subjected the commission to the severest test that could
    be applied; and agreeing, as their estimate of quality and
    quantity does, with our previously written reports, leads us to
    think that in the hands of experts it would be a valuable aid
    in judging the quality of dairy stock.

                                                   THOMAS GAWTHROP,
                                                   EVERARD CONARD,
                                                   HOWARD PRESTON,
                                                   MARK HUGHES,
                                                  _Committee_.

    WEST GROVE, _11 month 7, 1878_.

    The undersigned having been present at the examination of
    Thomas Gawthrop’s herd of dairy cows, by the Guenon commission,
    on the 2d day of 9 month, 1878, am free to say that, although
    most of the cows were blanketed from horns to tail, their
    estimate, in a great majority of them, very nearly corresponded
    with the owners account previously prepared.

                                                      M. E. CONARD.

    WEST GROVE, PA., _11 month 7, 1878_.

    Joseph Pyle would have signed had he been present at the
    examination. Expresses confidence in the system.

                                                              T. G.


Examination of J. & J. Darlington’s Cows, October 2d.

The commission visited the herds of Messrs. J. & J. Darlington, October
2, at Darlington station, on Westchester road, Delaware county. These
gentlemen make the finest butter and get the largest price in the market.
Their dairy is admirably arranged. They have farms of four hundred and
eighty acres, and have a herd of one hundred and sixty-seven cows. They
had selected about a fair sample of the herd in two lots of cows. The
first lot, from No. 9 to 33, was on one farm, and those numbered from 1
to 14 on the other farm. These gentlemen kept no test of the quality of
any cow’s milk, and have no exact record of the quantity given by any
cow; but as they are experienced dairymen, and thoroughly practical men,
they knew about what each cow was giving in milk, and about its general
quality, and sufficient to pronounce the grade of each cow, whether
first, second, or third class. Therefore, in their record they do not
give the exact record, as the committee would have desired, so as to
compare with their own estimates, but they give the general qualities
of the cow, and the two records must be compared from that stand point.
Another matter must be taken into consideration. The Messrs. Darlington
are liberal feeders, which accounts partly for their rich, tasty butter,
and tends to make their cows do full work. A standard of quarts for
first, second, and third class, upon which to estimate the qualities of
the cows, was agreed upon between the commission and Messrs. Darlington.

  J. & J. DARLINGTON’S ACCOUNT.    |GUENON COMMISSION’S ACCOUNT.
                                   |
  _No. 9._—                        |_No. 9._—Grade Durham.—Bicorn, second.
    Quantity, first.               |  Quantity, second.
    Time, six to eight weeks.      |  Quality, second.
    First-class cow.               |  Time, four to six weeks.
                                   |
  _No. 61._—                       |_No. 61._—Grade Durham.—Imperfect
                                   |    Flanders, third.
    Quantity, second.              |  Quantity, second class.
    Time, six to eight weeks.      |  Quality, second class.
    Second class cow.              |  Time, two months.
                                   |
  _No. 4._—                        |_No. 4._—Grade Durham.—Flanders, third.
    Quantity, third.               |  Quantity, third.
    Time, four to six weeks.       |  Quality, second.
    Third class cow.               |  Dry one month.
                                   |
  _No. 1._—                        |_No. 1._—Grade Durham.—Flanders, sec’d.
    Quantity, first.               |  Quantity, second.
    Time, four to six weeks.       |  Quality, second.
    First-class cow.               |  Up to her time.
                                   |
  _No. 41._—                       |_No. 41._—Grade Durham.—Flanders.
    Quantity, first.               |  Quantity, first.
    Time, four to six weeks.       |  Quality, second.
    First-class cow.               |  Time, six weeks to two months.
                                   |
  _No. 22._—                       |_No. 22._—Grade Durham.—Flanders, 2d.
    Quantity, first.               |  Quantity, first.
    Time, four to six weeks.       |  Quality, first.
    First-class cow.               |  Up to time, say four to six weeks.
                                   |
  _No. 6._—                        |_No. 6._—Grade Durham.—Imperfect
    Quantity, third.               |    Flanders.
    Time, six to eight weeks.      |  Quantity, third.
    Third class cow.               |  Quality, second.
                                   |  Dry eight to ten weeks.
                                   |
  _No. 7._—                        |_No. 7._—Grade.—Flanders, with bastard
    Quantity, second.              |    marks.
    Time, eight to ten weeks.      |  Quantity, second.
    Second class cow.              |  Quality, second.
                                   |  Up to her time, six weeks.
                                   |  Reëxamined, and shows bastard marks.
                                   |
  _No. 67._—                       |_No. 67._—Grade Durham.—Imperfect
    Quantity, first.               |    Flanders.
    Time, four to six weeks.       |  Quantity, first.
    First-class cow.               |  Quality, second.
                                   |  Dry eight weeks.
                                   |
  _No. 19._—                       |_No. 19._—Grade.—Selvage, third.
    Quantity, third.               |  Quantity, third.
    Time, two to three weeks.      |  Quality, second.
    Third class cow.               |  Dry eight weeks.
                                   |
  _No. 32._—                       |_No. 32._—Durham.—Flanders, third,
    Quantity, third.               |    partly bastard.
    Time, two to three weeks.      |  Quantity, second.
    Third class cow.               |  Quality, second.
                                   |  Dry eight weeks.
                                   |
  _No. 1._—                        |_No. 1._—Grade.—Flanders, third.
    Agrees with the commission.    |  Quantity, second.
    Second class cow.              |  Quality, second.
    Dry about two months.          |  Dry two months.
                                   |
  _No. 2._—                        |_No. 2._—Grade.—Flanders, second.
    Agrees with commission.        |  Quantity, first.
    First-class cow.               |  Quality, first.
    Dry four to six weeks.         |  Dry four to six weeks.
                                   |
  _No. 3._—                        |_No. 3._—Grade.—Imperfect Flanders.
    Second class cow.              |  Quantity, first.
    Dry about six weeks.           |  Quality, first.
                                   |  Dry six weeks.
                                   |
  _No. 4._—                        |_No. 4._—Grade.—Flanders, second.
    Agrees with committee.         |  Quantity, second.
    Second class cow.              |  Quality, second.
    Large milker, but fails too    |
      soon.                        |
    Dry from six to eight weeks.   |  Dry six to eight weeks.
                                   |
  _No. 5._—                        |_No. 5._—Grade, Durham.
    Large milker.                  |  Quantity, second.
    First-class.                   |  Quality, second.
    Dry six to eight weeks.        |  Dry eight to ten weeks.
                                   |
  _No. 6._—                        |_No. 6._—Grade.—Horizontal, first.
    Agrees with committee.         |  Quantity, second.
    Second class.                  |  Quality, second.
    Dry three to four weeks.       |  Dry four to six weeks.
                                   |
  _No. 7._—                        |_No. 7._—Grade.—Curveline, second.
    First-class in every respect.  |  Quantity, second.
    Best in the herd.              |  Quality, third.
    Dry four to eight weeks.       |  Dry four to six weeks.
                                   |
  _No. 8._—                        |_No. 8._—Grade, Durham.—Horizontal,
                                   |    first.
    Agrees with committee.         |  Quantity, second.
    Good second class.             |  Quality, second.
    Dry four to six weeks.         |  Dry four to six weeks.
                                   |
  _No. 9._—                        |_No. 9._—Grade.—Flanders, a Gauche.
    First-class.                   |  Quantity, second.
    Dry four to six weeks.         |  Quality, second.
                                   |  Dry six weeks.
                                   |
  _No. 10._—                       |_No. 10._—Grade.—Flanders, second.
    Agrees with commission’s.      |  Quantity, second.
    Second class.                  |  Quality, second.
    Dry six to eight weeks.        |  Dry six weeks.
                                   |
  _No. 11._—                       |_No. 11._—Grade.—Double selvage.—Some
    First-class.                   |    bastard marks.
    Dry about eight weeks.         |  Quantity, second.
                                   |  Quality, second.
                                   |  Dry ten to twelve weeks.
                                   |
  _No. 12._—                       |_No. 12._—Grade.—Imperfect Flanders.
    Agrees with commission’s.      |  Quantity, first.
    First-class.                   |  Quality, second.
    Dry six to eight weeks.        |  Dry six weeks.
                                   |
  _No. 13._—                       |_No. 13._—Grade, Durham.—Flanders,
                                   |    third.
    Agrees with commission.        |  Quantity, third.
    Third class.                   |  Quality, third.
    Dry four to six weeks.         |  Dry six to eight weeks.
                                   |
  _No. 14._—                       |_No. 14._—Grade.—Flanders, second.
    Agrees with commission.        |  Quantity, first.
    First-class.                   |  Quality, second.
    Dry two to three weeks.        |  Up to her time.

    We were present at the examination of our stock by the
    Pennsylvania Guenon Commission, on October 2d, and have
    examined the accounts here rendered, with the original written
    opinions, and find them to correspond. The accounts were given
    by both parties without either knowing anything of the accounts
    of the other.

                                       (Signed) J. & J. DARLINGTON.

Having given the results of their work, the commission would now leave
the further solution of the problem to the practical dairymen of the
State. They, of course, expect that not only their report, but also the
correctness of the system, will be criticised; but if this criticism is
conducted with a spirit of fairness, and with a view to obtain the truth,
they fully believe the result will be favorable.

By direction of the commission.

                                                  WILLIS P. HAZARD,
                                                    _Secretary_.




ADDENDA.


The appointment of a commission by Governor Hartranft, in 1878, to
investigate and verify the theories of M. Guenon in judging and selecting
milch cows, has resulted in much good to the agricultural community. The
members of that commission, including Mr. George Blight, who acted upon
a similar committee in 1853, thoroughly imbued with the accuracy of the
system and the desire to extend its usefulness, have continued to explain
this mode of selecting cows whenever an opportunity offered. This has
been very frequent, and many hundred cows have been examined in public,
and the system explained in every section of the country.

It is fortunate that all other modes of judging cows do not militate
against M. Guenon’s views; they give the judge only a more certain mode,
and, if he has had much practice, a nearly infallible one. There are some
points which are in full unison with Guenon’s views, but do not appear in
his work, and may be spoken of as follows:

1st. All bovine animals have on the skin of the back a _quirl in the
hair_, which seems to be a sort of dividing line or point between the
hair on the front of the animal and that on the hinder portion. This
should be found in the center of the ridge of the animal, that is,
equi-distant from the head as from the root of the tail, and should be
well defined, but of short fine hair. Frequently it is to be seen on the
shoulder; when there, coarse hair is generally the accompaniment, and
with that, a thick or tough skin, and no great milking qualities, or if
much milk is given, it is not for a long time, nor is the milk of rich
quality. The heaviest milkers have this mark, usually on the middle of
the back, and the richest, with short fine hair. In short, the nearer the
middle of the back, and the smaller the quirl and the finer the hair,
the most generally will the cow be the better milker and of the richest
quality. This mark Mr. Blight and myself have been testing for a long
time, and we feel now that we can recommend it as a very good additional
point to judge from.

2d. The tail should be long and squarely placed on the animal at the
root, and of thin fine quality, with a good curly or corkscrew switch,
and the bone of the tail should extend fully down to the knee and as
much below it as possible. The horns should be small, waxy, and crumpled
inwards and downwards a little. If they are long, they should be thin and
sometimes rather flat.

3d. Bulls; the same remarks apply to these. Their hind legs should
resemble, as much as possible, those of the cow, with great length
between the hoof and the first joint; this indicates their aptitude to
beget heifer calves and good milkers.

4th. On raising calves, proper nourishment should be given; if stinted,
the inferior parts develop to the injury of the better; the head and
horns will be out of proportion to the rest of the body.


The Breeding and Value of well-selected Butter Cows.

We have frequently endeavored to show that one of the most important
advantages of Guenon’s system is, that it enables every owner of cows
to tell the good from the bad cows, and that by weeding out the poor
ones, and raising the tone of his herd, he will increase his profits,
and if every farmer in the State will do the same, the increased value
of all herds, and the increased results in profits, would amount to many
millions yearly.

Pertinent to this subject, Mr. J. H. Walker, of Worcester, Massachusetts,
the owner of a very choice herd of Jerseys, embracing members of the
Alphea, Victor, and Pansy families, has prepared an article on the
BREEDING AND VALUE OF BUTTER COWS, which proves, by tables showing the
net results of good and bad cows, the theory that good cows will pay
better than poor ones as an investment. We digest his remarks as follows:

In New England, a pound of butter can be made for less money than a pound
and a half of beef, taking the animals at birth or beginning with animals
two years old.

Taking any good herd of Jersey cows, old and young, from the time the
heifers first come in milk, and it will average to make two thirds as
many pounds of butter per annum as any person in New England can make in
pounds of beef, on any herd of any breed.

The beef is worth six to nine cents, and the butter from twenty to forty
cents.

Furthermore, every farmer should know what the difference is in the
actual value of the different cows he owns, rating their value upon the
money he gets for their product.

An ordinary cow will make about two hundred pounds of butter a year.
The tables are intended to show what the difference is in the value of
different cows for producing butter, taking as a basis the payment of
thirty dollars for a cow that will make two hundred pounds of butter per
annum, and for different amounts up to six hundred pounds per annum,
assuming that the cow will die at twelve years of age. The interest
upon the first cost of the cow, and on her product for each year, is
compounded at the rate of six per cent. per annum, up to the day it is
assumed the cow will die, taking no account of the value of the stock
bred from her.

As long as every business is done upon the basis of interest on
investments, we must treat the question of values as applied to cows on
that basis. This is the only way to accurately prove the difference in
value between one cow and another.


Table A.

If the cow cost thirty dollars, the keeping per annum twenty-five
dollars, and the butter sells for twenty-five cents a pound, the
_profits_ on the cows will be as follows, viz:

  Paying $30 00 for a 200 pound cow, he will get in ten years,  $170 00
    ”    189 97  ”    300      ”        ”             ”          235 03
    ”    348 86  ”    400      ”        ”             ”          299 89
    ”    504 39  ”    500      ”        ”             ”          363 11
    ”    671 61  ”    600      ”        ”             ”          428 39


Table B.

_Including interest_ on all items, a farmer will make on each cow as
follows, (made on a basis of twenty-five cents a pound for butter, and
twenty-five dollars a year for keeping,) viz:

  Paying $30 00 for a 200 pound cow, he will get in ten years,  $195 73
    ”    125 00  ”    300      ”        ”             ”          313 06
    ”    250 00  ”    400      ”        ”             ”          374 15
    ”    350 00  ”    500      ”        ”             ”          474 52
    ”    450 00  ”    600      ”        ”             ”          595 91


Table C.

Reckoning the annual cost of keeping at thirty-five dollars, and butter
at thirty cents a pound, _reckoning interest_ on her cost, and on all
receipts from her, a farmer will make on each cow as follows, viz:

  Paying $30 00 for a 200 pound cow, he will get in ten years,  $182 87
    ”    125 00  ”    300      ”        ”             ”          354 78
    ”    250 00  ”    400      ”        ”             ”          483 49
    ”    350 00  ”    500      ”        ”             ”          654 17
    ”    450 00  ”    600      ”        ”             ”          811 59


Table D.

On an annual cost of keeping of fifty dollars, and price of butter at
thirty-five cents:

  Paying $30 00 for a 200 pound cow, he will get in ten years,   $95 76
    ”    125 00  ”    300      ”        ”             ”          318 39
    ”    250 00  ”    400      ”        ”             ”          507 46
    ”    350 00  ”    500      ”        ”             ”          744 20
    ”    450 00  ”    600      ”        ”             ”          960 90

Assuming that each cow, costing at two years old the price named in
the tables, will die at twelve years old, the actual value of cows to
practical farmers, making annually the different amounts of butter named,
is shown.

They show what the cow will make in the ten years, and also what a farmer
can afford to pay for each cow making the different amounts of butter
named. They show the different amounts the farmer, who buys one of each
of the cows named, paying the prices named for each of the five, will
make on each, provided no interest is reckoned on the price paid for the
cow, or on the butter made from her, during ten years.

These figures are certainly startling to any one who has not taken the
trouble to examine this subject, much more so to the farmer who never
figures carefully, and does exactly as his father did before him, without
regard to the altered circumstances that surround him.

The farmer who shakes his head wisely at his more enterprising neighbor,
and insists that cows making as much butter as is mentioned in these five
tables do not live and never did, should know that the thorough-bred
Jersey cows, Jersey Belle of Scituate, of the Victor family, made 705
pounds of butter in twelve consecutive months; that Eurotas, of the
Alphia family, made 778 pounds of butter between November 12, 1879,
and October 15, 1880, and dropped a heifer calf on November 4, 1880;
that Pansy, sired by Living Storm, dam Dolly 2d, sired by Emperor 2d,
made in her four year old form 574 pounds of butter in one year; that
imported Flora made 511 pounds of butter in fifty weeks; that Countess
made 16 pounds of butter on grass only, when fourteen years old. These
well-established facts no intelligent, fair-minded man now disputes,
and it is confidently believed that many more Jerseys will make as much
butter as have any of those mentioned.

The question which at once suggests itself to farmers who are not
satisfied with their present animals, is that of capital. The answer is,
“admitting the above figures to be correct, I have no capital to pay
the high prices demanded for the best Jersey cows, and I must therefore
forego that improvement of my herd, which I know I ought to make.” Let us
see if this is so.

By any process of reasoning, the “bull is half the herd.” Each cow
contributes to one calf each year half its qualities. The bull
contributes to every calf produced in the herd half its qualities. Some
horse-breeders will talk only of the excellences of the stallion. Some
farmers will talk only of the excellences of the cows. Both are mistaken.
The sire and the dam, each contribute to their offspring, on the
average, exactly the same proportion of their excellences or defects.

Some bulls are so powerfully organized as to be able to stamp their
qualities, good or bad, on nearly every one of their progeny, as are some
cows; but these are the rare exceptions. Each contribute the same, as
a rule. No scientific investigator of the breeding problem, or careful
breeder, would any sooner select the offspring of a 600 pound butter cow,
got by a bull from a 200 pound butter family, than he would a heifer got
by a full brother to the 600 pound butter cow from a full sister to the
200 pound butter bull.

Using a bull from a 400 pound butter family, on heifers from a 200 pound
butter family, is just as likely to produce heifers that will make from
two hundred to four hundred pounds of butter annually, averaging a yield
of three hundred pounds; as the using of a bull from a 200 pound butter
family on cows of a 400 pound butter family, would be to reduce the yield
of some of the heifers to two hundred pounds, and the average to three
hundred pounds. The increasing the butter yield of the heifers from a
herd of cows one half by using a bull on them from a family or breed that
make twice as much, or the reverse, can be relied upon as certainly as
any expected result in the most uncertain of all business, namely: that
of breeding.

If these statements are correct, what had a farmer better pay for a bull
from a 400 pound butter family, to use on his herd of ten 200 pound
butter cows, rather than use a bull from a 200 pound butter family?

It may be said that the keeping would cost more, because the higher bred
product must be kept better. There is some truth in this, but the better
keeping would affect favorably the poorer animals as well, and whatever
the extra feed would cost, it would carry the value of the average yield
as much above the figures we are making, as the extra feed would cost.

The ten 200 pound butter cows, in ten years would pay a profit of $1,957
30. If the ten cows bred from them, by using the 400 pound butter bull,
would make half as much again butter at the same cost, the general
product would be increased by one half, and leave the sum to be deducted
for keeping the same, for if the two year old 200 pound butter heifer
could be raised for $30, so could the better bred one. The profit on
each of them, deducting $54 18, cost of cow, will be $484 64—on the ten,
$4,846 40, and on the 200 pound butter cows, the profits would be $1,957
30. The advantages reaped by the farmer who has the product for ten years
of heifers bred by using the better bull, will be $2,889 10 more than on
the 200 pound butter cows.

If he paid for his bull $1,500, and the bull and all his cows died at
twelve years old, the farmer would be as well off as he would have been
to have used the 200 pound butter bull.

But there is no necessity of paying $1,500 for a 400 pound butter
bull. One hundred dollars will buy a Jersey bull, six weeks old, from
a 400 pound butter family, and he will be old enough to use in twelve
months. The $100 paid for him, at six per cent. compound interest,
would amount to $191 61, in eleven years. The profit on ten butter cows
making three hundred pounds over the ten cows making two hundred pounds
in ten years, being $2,800, by deducting the $191 61 for the bull that
produced them, (counting nothing for the 200 pound butter bull, for he
is good-for-nothing,) the actual advantage reaped by the farmer with
intelligence and enterprise enough to secure the better bull, in the ten
years after his heifers come in, is over $2,500 on the butter alone. The
animals are counted of no value when twelve years old, as the price got
for those living beyond that age would average to pay only for the losses
caused by accident to animals before reaching that age. These figures
take no account of the skim-milk or buttermilk, for they are nearly
the same in either case, and will pay the taxes and for the care of the
animals; but there is one very important source of profit that is not
reckoned, and that is the extra value of the progeny, which is shown by
the following table, to be $17,424 48.

There must be no mistake made in procuring a Jersey bull calf.

Although, as a breed, they are twice to three times as valuable for
butter as common cows, yet any farmer who buys or uses a Jersey bull,
because he is a Jersey bull, will sorely repent his venture.

Buy a bull only from the very best families of Jerseys. They are cheaper
than the gift of an average good one.

The idea that it costs more to keep Jersey cows than common cows, or that
Jersey cows will not take on flesh, for beef, as readily as other breeds,
is true in one view, and very erroneous in another and more correct one.

What a Jersey eats, beyond a limited amount, increases the quantity and
richness of her milk, not her flesh, and the amount of flesh she carries
is proportionally less for any extra feed, because it does not make
flesh, but increases the butter globules in her milk. Again, any other
breed can be readily dried off at any time, and being dry, or giving but
little milk, and that of poor quality, they readily take on flesh, but a
good Jersey is “dried off” with great difficulty, and herein she greatly
excels all other breeds. Hundreds of Jerseys, milking twelve to sixteen
quarts at their flush, hold out so evenly, that they will give many more
quarts of milk, and of double the richness, in a year, than eighteen to
twenty-four quart cows, of other families, that are dry several months of
the year.

It is the experience of every breeder of Jerseys that, _being dry_, they
will take on flesh as fast, with a given quantity and quality of feed, as
other breeds, not exclusively beef producers.

They are not good for beef, simply because they are good for butter.

From Jersey cows, a farmer in New England can make a pound of butter
worth thirty-five cents, with a less quantity of food than they now use
to make a pound and one half of beef worth nine cents.

If farmers think there is some error in these statements, they will,
like sensible men whose prosperity depends upon the result, sit down and
figure out the results for themselves.

Those who talk loudest against them, will hold on to a cow in their herd
that has a little Jersey blood in her; and if they put a price on her, it
will be from half as much again, to double that of the finer formed cow
standing beside her, guiltless of having any Jersey blood in her veins.

If there is an animal to be had any better than the bull any one is now
using, it ought to be secured at once. So with cows, but by all means
change at once for a better, any bull, however good.

It is not claimed for any of the tables herewith presented, that they
show absolutely the value of any cow to any farmer, but only that they
are relatively correct. Every man who consults them, must make his own
adjustments as to cost and receipts on any cow he owns. It is clear, that
adding a very little to the cost of keeping, and deducting a very little
from the price of butter, will show that any 200 pound butter cow brings
her owner in debt, each year. Again, there are probably hundreds of cows
kept for the dairy, that will not make two hundred pounds of butter in
one year on the same feed Jersey Belle of Scituate, had when she made
seven hundred and five pounds of butter in one year. It may be said
that no allowance is made for any accidents to which a cow is liable—to
abort, to have a calf die at birth, to injury, &c., and the thought is
present that the loss on the poorer animal is not so much, in that case,
as on the better; but the better is no more liable to such a case, and
the loss is nearly the same proportionally. But it is still true, that
the nearer to absolute worthlessness animals are, the less the loss,
relatively and absolutely, their owner suffers in their injury. Better
remember, however, that “blessed be nothing” is not the ejaculation of
the healthful, the enterprising, and the successful, but of desperate
disease, incapacity, or idleness.


Table E.

Showing the value of the progeny of a herd of 32 cows, that each make
300 pounds of butter annually, at the expiration of ten years, together
with the value of the butter the progeny will have made during the ten
years. Also showing the same on a herd of 32 cows, each making 200 pounds
of butter annually. No account is taken of the bull calves, for they are
worth nothing. No one can afford to use a bull, however good, if one is
to be had that is any better.

    ================================================================
                                  ||    200 POUND BUTTER HERD.     |
    -------+-----------+----------++----------+--------+-----------+
    On     |The        | Coming   ||Value of  |Value of|Total value|
    January|original   | in milk  ||butter    |heifers |of the     |
    1st,   |herd of    | at 2,    ||at the    |at end  |heifers    |
    of the |32 will    | will make||end of ten|of ten  |and their  |
    year—  |drop—      | butter—  ||years.    |years.  |product.   |
    -------+-----------+----------++----------+--------+-----------+
    1881   |16 heifers,| 8 years, ||$3,174 46 |   $160 | $3,334 46 |
    1882   |16   ”     | 7  ”     || 2,724 54 |    160 |  2,884 54 |
    1883   |16   ”     | 6  ”     || 2,247 04 |    320 |  2,567 04 |
    1884   |16   ”     | 5  ”     || 1,740 32 |    480 |  2,220 32 |
    1885   |16   ”     | 4  ”     || 1,202 72 |    480 |  1,682 72 |
    1886   |16   ”     | 3  ”     ||   632 32 |    480 |  1,112 32 |
    1887   |16   ”     | 2  ”     ||   208 64 |    480 |    688 64 |
    1888   |16   ”     | 1  ”     ||          |    480 |    480 00 |
    1889   |16   ”     | yearling,||          |    288 |    288 00 |
    1890   |16   ”     | calf,    ||          |     96 |     96 00 |
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
                 Product of the Second Generation.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    1883   | 8 heifers,| 6 years, ||$1,122 52 |    160 | $1,283 54 |
    1884   | 8   ”     | 5   ”    ||   870 16 |    240 |  1,110 16 |
    1885   | 8   ”     | 4   ”    ||   601 36 |    240 |    841 36 |
    1886   | 8   ”     | 3   ”    ||   316 16 |    240 |    556 16 |
    1887   | 8   ”     | 2   ”    ||   104 32 |    240 |    344 32 |
    1888   | 8   ”     | 1   ”    ||          |    240 |    240 00 |
    1889   | 8   ”     | yearling,||          |    144 |    144 00 |
    1890   | 8   ”     | calf,    ||          |     48 |     48 00 |
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
                 Product of the Third Generation.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    1885   | 4 heifers,| 4 years, ||  $300 68  |   120 |   $420 68 |
    1886   | 4    ”    | 3   ”    ||   158 08  |   120 |    278 08 |
    1887   | 4    ”    | 2   ”    ||    52 16  |   120 |    172 16 |
    1888   | 4    ”    | 1   ”    ||           |   120 |    120 00 |
    1889   | 4    ”    | yearling,||           |    72 |     72 00 |
    1890   | 4    ”    | calf,    ||           |    24 |     24 00 |
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
                 Product of the Fourth Generation.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    1887   | 2 heifers,| 2 years, ||  $26 08   |    60 |    $86 08 |
    1888   | 2   ”     | 1   ”    ||           |    60 |     60 00 |
    1889   | 2   ”     | yearling,||           |    36 |     36 00 |
    1890   | 2   ”     | calf,    ||           |    12 |     12 00 |
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
                 Product of the Fifth Generation.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    1889   | 1 heifer, | yearling,||           |    18 |     18 00 |
    1890   | 1   ”     | calf,    ||           |     6 |      6 00 |
    ================================================================
    Total value of progeny from herd of 32 in 10 years,  $21,226 58

    Value of progeny, $663 33 on each 200 pound cow.

    ===============================================================
                                  ||    300 POUND BUTTER HERD.
    -------+-----------+----------++----------+--------+-----------
    On     |The        | Coming   ||Value of  |Value of|Total value
    January|original   | in milk  ||butter    |heifers |of the
    1st,   |herd of    | at 2,    ||at the    |at end  |heifers
    of the |32 will    | will make||end of ten|of ten  |and their
    year—  |drop—      | butter—  ||years.    |years.  |product.
    -------+-----------+----------++----------+--------+-----------
    1881   |16 heifers,| 8 years, ||$6,973 12 | $1,216 | $8,189 12
    1882   |16   ”     | 7  ”     || 6,073 12 |  1,824 |  7,897 12
    1883   |16   ”     | 6  ”     || 5,117 92 |  2,432 |  7,549 92
    1884   |16   ”     | 5  ”     || 4,104 32 |  3,040 |  7,144 32
    1885   |16   ”     | 4  ”     || 3,029 12 |  3,040 |  6,069 12
    1886   |16   ”     | 3  ”     || 1,888 32 |  3,040 |  4,928 32
    1887   |16   ”     | 2  ”     ||   980 48 |  3,040 |  4,020 48
    1888   |16   ”     | 1  ”     ||   340 32 |  3,040 |  3,380 32
    1889   |16   ”     | yearling,||          |  2,000 |  2,000 00
    1890   |16   ”     | calf,    ||          |    960 |    960 00
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
                 Product of the Second Generation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    1883   | 8 heifers,| 6 years, ||$2,558 96 |  1,216 | $3,774 96
    1884   | 8   ”     | 5   ”    || 2,052 16 |  1,520 |  3,572 16
    1885   | 8   ”     | 4   ”    || 1,514 56 |  1,520 |  3,034 56
    1886   | 8   ”     | 3   ”    ||   944 16 |  1,520 |  2,464 16
    1887   | 8   ”     | 2   ”    ||   490 24 |  1,520 |  2,010 24
    1888   | 8   ”     | 1   ”    ||   170 16 |  1,520 |  1,690 16
    1889   | 8   ”     | yearling,||          |  1,000 |  1,000 00
    1890   | 8   ”     | calf,    ||          |    480 |    480 00
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
                 Product of the Third Generation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    1885   | 4 heifers,| 4 years, ||  $757 28 |    760 | $1,517 28
    1886   | 4    ”    | 3   ”    ||   472 08 |    760 |  1,232 08
    1887   | 4    ”    | 2   ”    ||   245 12 |    760 |  1,005 12
    1888   | 4    ”    | 1   ”    ||    85 08 |    760 |    845 08
    1889   | 4    ”    | yearling,||          |    500 |    500 00
    1890   | 4    ”    | calf,    ||          |    240 |    240 00
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
                 Product of the Fourth Generation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    1887   | 2 heifers,| 2 years, ||  $122 56 |    380 |   $502 56
    1888   | 2   ”     | 1   ”    ||    42 54 |    380 |    422 54
    1889   | 2   ”     | yearling,||          |    250 |    250 00
    1890   | 2   ”     | calf,    ||          |    120 |    120 00
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
                 Product of the Fifth Generation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    1889   | 1 heifer, | yearling,||          |    125 |    125 00
    1890   | 1   ”     | calf,    ||          |     60 |     60 00
    ===============================================================
    Total value of progeny from herd of 32 in 10 years, $76,984 62

    Value of progeny, $2,405 77 on each 300 pound cow.




NOTICES OF THE PRESS.


“The whole system is very clearly laid down, so that any one, by practice
and study, may learn from this work how to use it. The arguments for and
against are also set forth, with proofs of the value of the system. Our
dairymen would do well to study the subject and be able to guess as well
as the members of the commission on the value of the cows examined by
them.”—_American Dairymen._

“In itself, the system is very simple, and, with care, easily understood;
and, taking into consideration its great importance, should be studied
and acquired by all who are directly or indirectly interested in farming,
and as so many opportunities are offering to obtain a practical knowledge
of the method, there can be no excuse for ignorance any longer. The
system of judging the value of cows has become so thoroughly arranged
that with a little practice, enough can be learned from it in a short
time to serve any one making use of it, and thereby avoiding loss.

“The bulls are found marked with corresponding designs, as far as the sex
permits, which indicate unerringly their good and poor qualities; and
thus by a wise use of the knowledge acquired through the Guenon method,
stock breeders can judiciously, and with almost certainty, select their
cattle for the purposes in view, either for milking, butter-making,
or beef, according to their desire, for all these results follow its
teachings.”—_State Fair Daily._

“Mr. Hazard has given us a most interesting work upon a system that
has gained the respect and consideration of thinking farmers the world
over.”—_Farm and Fireside, Springfield, Ohio._

“Mr. Hazard is, no doubt, the best posted supporter of the system in this
country, and may be regarded as authority. If his recommendations for
the selection of dairy stock are worthless then the whole Guenon system
may be condemned as being utterly fallacious. His book deserves careful
attention from intelligent farmers.”—_Bucks County Intelligencer._

“In a majority of cases, the marks have been reliable, and this should
incite all dairy folks to know what is said about it.”—_Meehan’s
Gardner’s Monthly._

“It embraces a sketch of Guenon, and the progress of his discovery;
extracts from his preface explaining his views; an explanation of his
system of escutcheon marks; descriptions of the various escutcheons and
their indications of value and quantity, and directions how to apply them
in practice, together with the report of the commission of which the
author served as secretary. Nearly one hundred illustrations are given,
those of the escutcheons being photographed from the drawings in Guenon’s
last revised edition.”—_Country Gentleman and Cultivator._

“Remarkable as was M. Guenon’s method, and although his discoveries were
duly made known in this country, this is the first time that his methods
have been compiled for practical use. By the use of this little handbook,
there can be no doubt, but that farmers and stock raisers would save a
vast amount of money. The explanations are simple and easily followed,
the numerous illustrations serving to elucidate the text.”—_Boston
Evening Traveler._

“Beginning with a little sketch of the method of the birth of the system
in Guenon’s mind, the author goes on in a clear and concise manner to
explain by plain language and appropriate drawings, the various so
called ‘milk mirrors’ and their values, being properly understood,
as aids in selecting good dairy stock. The various opinions of those
adverse to the ‘theory’ are fairly discussed, and the reports of various
agricultural societies which have from time to time investigated it
are given, together with the report of the Pennsylvania commission.
Taken altogether, Mr. Hazard has succeeded in making a very readable,
interesting and valuable book, and one which, whatever may or may not
be the preconceived ideas of its reader, cannot fail to interest and
instruct him upon a subject which should be far better understood amongst
farmers generally, than it at present is.”—_New England Homestead._

“A very valuable pamphlet. Mr. Hazard has devoted great attention and
study to the subject, with a view of rendering the system popular, and we
happen to know that his work is largely appreciated, especially by the
farmers of New England, from the number of orders received for the book.
The discovery made by Mr. Guenon, and the practical principles founded on
it are invaluable, and the saving to the country by its general knowledge
will be very great. The State of Pennsylvania, in 1878, appointed a
commission to test the system and report on it. Mr. Hazard was a member
of the commission, and has added the results of much study and research.
He has been invited to lecture and present the subject at the annual
meeting of the Massachusetts State Board of Agriculture, at Greenfield,
and has many invitations and engagements in other places.”—_Massachusetts
Ploughman._

“This volume embraces all the essential matters in Guenon’s treatise.
It is really a valuable contribution to dairy literature.”—_Southern
Cultivator._

“Every farmer should study Guenon.”—_Farm Journal._

“Dairymen and stock raisers should send for a copy.”—_Rural Nebraska._




EXTRACTS FROM THE MUCH LARGER NOTICES OF THE WORK.


HOW TO SELECT COWS; OR, THE GUENON SYSTEM EXPLAINED. By _Willis P.
Hazard_. In no way is the march of improvement in agriculture more
decided than in the new discoveries and new methods of developing its
resources. It is owing to these that America is now the granary of the
world, and, as years roll by, if the developments of the next decade
are as great in proportion as the last ones, no matter how extensive
the foreign demand, there will be an ample supply at still lower prices
than at the present. No branch of agricultural interests has changed
so much and received such an impetus, especially within the last five
years, as the dairy. Entire new modes of making butter and cheese and
of setting milk have largely taken place of the old ones. Competition
in making dairy products becomes keener each year, and every process by
which the labor can be lessened, or the products be cheapened, meets with
recompense.

The first step, however, is in the selection of good stock, for by it the
product of the herd is increased from twenty-five to thirty-three per
cent., and, therefore, the profits must be immensely greater. The old
plan of our forefathers of judging of the value of a cow by a crumpled
horn and a large bag is now set aside by recent discoveries. The most
important and most reliable one is that of Mons. François Guenon, of
Libourne, France. After a series of experiments he was convinced there
were outward marks in the hair which were an indication of the yield and
quality of all cows. Patiently for many years he labored at forming his
discoveries into a system, with classes and orders of each variation.
He was finally rewarded by the approval of all the leading agricultural
societies in France, and by that government with a pension of three
thousand francs.

The work of Guenon was partially translated and published in this country
years ago, but it was his first crude effort, and it presented the new
science in so crude a form as rather to dismay the learner than to
invite him to master it. Last year the State of Pennsylvania appointed
a commission of three well-known agriculturists and experts to test the
system and report upon it. That report was printed and published to the
extent of twenty-five thousand copies, which but partially supplied the
demand. Messrs. Blight, Harvey, and Hazard examined the escutcheons of
two hundred cows, and interpreted them as regards the quantity, quality,
and time of the yield of each animal. Alongside of their statements the
knowledge of the owner of each cow was printed, and it is truly wonderful
how accurately the character of each cow is given by these gentlemen who
had never seen the cattle before. The gist of their report was that the
system was invaluable and worthy of adoption by every farmer, and such
adoption would add millions of value to the improved herds of the country.

Upon the publication of this report, discussions took place in the
leading agricultural journals, and thus has been created a demand for
more easily to be acquired knowledge upon the whole subject. Willis P.
Hazard, the secretary of the commission, has prepared a complete treatise
upon Guenon’s system, and it has been just issued in a cheap form, for
wide circulation.

Mr. Hazard in his book gives a sketch of the life of M. Guenon and
the progress of his system, and then fully explains it, so that in
this simplified form any one can quickly learn all the points so as
to readily apply it. The opinions of others, both pro and con, are
introduced, argued, and answered, so that in this volume one gets a full
history and account of the system, and its practical application is made
easy. There is a profusion of engravings, photographed from Guenon’s
designs, which thoroughly elucidate the text and render it a valuable
handbook which no farmer can afford to do without, and which amateur
agriculturists will find a most interesting development of a wonderful
discovery.—_Philadelphia Inquirer._

“A gentleman well known among the dairymen, and who was appointed by the
Governor of Pennsylvania to investigate the value and practicability of
the Guenon system. He was induced to undertake the explanation of the
system, which he has very ably performed in this volume. The low price
at which it is offered should induce every one even in the smallest
manner engaged in breeding or management of cows to procure a copy of
it.”—_American Farmer, Baltimore._

“At the New York State fair, in September, 1879, Mr. Hazard applied
the Guenon system to a large number of cows of different breeds on
exhibition, and told the amount of milk each gave, as indicated by the
escutcheon theory. A committee, with Col. F. D. Curtis as chairman, was
appointed to accompany him, and they state in their report that he was
generally accurate, not varying in any instance more than two quarts in
stating the daily average yield, and in most cases giving the amount
exactly, and also the time the cows would give milk. He made his estimate
on the average daily yield for the first three months after calving,
on liberal feed. In one or two instances he over rated the cows, but
generally where there was any difference he was under the amount stated
by the owners. Mr. Hazard takes into consideration in his estimates the
size of the cow and her whole contour, as well as the character of the
skin. His round of observation is first the shape of the escutcheon,
then the milk veins and quality of the skin. He offered to have the cows
blanketed and then tell their milking capacity, but this was not done.
It is fair to say that he judges mainly by the escutcheon. The tests
attracted a large circle of breeders, who were greatly interested on
account of the novelty and general accuracy.”—_Col. Curtis in New York
Tribune._





End of Project Gutenberg's How to Select Cows, by Willis Pope Hazard