116 FARMERS' INSTITUTES. 



for it takes him three or four mouths to get a fresh start. Keeping stock iu 

 good shape through winter insures rapid gain in spring. 



Mr. Norton : I would like to hear from the stock growers that are interested 

 and find out which hreed is the best. If Mr. Piiillips has the best I want 

 him to show why. If Mr. Graham has the best I want to know it and to 

 know why If Mr. Phelps has the best I should like to know it. And 

 if we have got to come down to those little Jerseys, I want to know that too. 

 (Laughter.) In the Chicago fat stock show the Herefords took the prize. All 

 animals have to go finally lo the block, and there is the test. 



Mr. Bartlett : Mr. Norton says the block is the test of value. I object to 

 that. The cow that gives milk for 10 years, even if worth not more than $25 

 at the end of that time, has been a more profitable animal than the $100 

 bullock. Of cows the value is in their lifetime. 



Mr. Phillips: I believe the prize animal at Chicago was only half Hereford 

 and quarter Shorthorn. Last year a Shorthorn took the prize, dead and alive. 



Mr. Phelps : Some one said Herefords had to be fed heavily to make them 

 good. I once called on Mr. Sanford Howard, then Secretary of the State Board 

 of Agriculture, a man of most excellent judgment in stock. He said the 

 Herefords are essentially poor men's cattle, i. e., they will prove profitable even 

 though neglected. 



Mr. Phillips : I agree with Mr. Howard, they are the poor man's cattle, and 

 the man who raises them always will be poor. 



Mr. Willits: In reading the program I was misled as to the subject. "How 

 shall we improve our common cattle," I thought meant our native cattle. But 

 you have been talking about thoroughbreds here and have got it so fine that 

 common cattle means improved stock. The discussion has bciu limited to that 

 direction. I was in hopes that Mr. Norton would try to give us some points 

 about common cattle, as I conclude from what he said that he had nothing but 

 native stock, and as he seems to have good stock, why is it that he does not 

 run for Shorthorns and Herefords ? Is it because he is afraid of paying Mr. 

 Graham the two hundred dollars? I think Mr. Norton can see a possible 

 profit as quick as any of us. Would it not be possible for us to take our native 

 stock and improve that just as this improved stock has been improved ? What 

 is the Shorthorn but improved common stock? Improved for years by select- 

 ing the best points and transmitting them. Now I am free to say I have a 

 little national pride. I would like, if possible, to raise up some Aqierican 

 stock ; something that wasn't Jersey or Holsteiu. Why can't America, by 

 persistent sele^ion of the best and breeding from them, develop an American 

 stock that shall be as good as other things American? 



We have broad plains and fertile soil. Cannot they grow a good thing? You 

 may say, it is not possible, because even our native stock was originally imported. 

 We haven't anything but wliab was imported. Did it have the same points the 

 Holstein had or the Ayrshire? What has become of those points ? There is a 

 queer fact in reference to a transmission of quality. You can take these scrubs 

 and in a few generations raise them head and shoulder above the common stock. 

 Jersey stock was developed on an island and they didn't import any. There 

 was a law against importing and they improved on what they had. 



Do you say, " What is the use of beginning all over again when we have 

 the opportunity of starting where our predecessors left off — of beginning at 

 the top of their achievements ?" But how do you know but the native 

 stock will develop a quality better than the imported. Have you tried it ? 



On this question of the relative merits of the different breeds as beef makers, 



