FARMERS' INSTITUTES. 301 



of manure of some kind in order to keep up the fertility of our land 1 will call 

 your attention to some experiments performed by Prof. Lawes in England, 

 extending over a series of 33 years. I will not take your time except to give 

 you the average for the 33 years, wheat being raised and each plat being treated 

 precisely in the same manner each year. The 1st plat was unmanured and 

 raised 14^ bushels per acre average for the 33 years. The 3d well manured 

 with farm yard manure, average 35^ bushels. The 3d treated to 300 lbs. am- 

 monial manure per acre in the fall, each year, average 31f bushels. The 4th 

 the same applied in spring average 37f bushels. The 5th treated to same 

 amount of nitrate of soda, average 37 bushels. You have here an average illus- 

 tration of the value of manures to land if cropped continually, and also the fact 

 forcibly illustrated that well rotted farm-yard manure in liberal doses is about 

 as good as the commercial antidotes for poor land. Each farmer has the means 

 at his command "by increasing his stock annd feeding all the coarse products of 

 the farm at least, and returning the unmures to keep up the fertility of his 

 farm. Then the question comes up, ''What stock shall we keep?" I will 

 answer by saying, "keep pure-bred stock of some breed adapted to the wants of 

 your farms, and the circumstances by which you are surrounded ; and if you 

 cannot do it at once, work with that end in view."' And let me here say that 

 the circumstances are what shall determine whether he shall keep more of cat- 

 tle, sheep, or swine. I shall limit my paper, however, to cattle, and as we pass, 

 let us notice some of the circumstances that surround the farmer showing how 

 difficult to answer this question, telling "what stock he should keep." 

 1st. He is to consider Avhother he is near enough to market for profit. 

 3d. What that market pays best prices for. 



3d. Wliether there are strong probabilities of a stable market, and a perma- 

 nent call for some particular product. 



4th. Whether his farm is adapted to the product called for, and can produce 

 it with profit. 



5th. Whether he is able to provide the proper care, buildings, shelter, etc., 

 that some of these breeds require. 



All or nearly all of these conditions enter into the scale when weighing the 

 arguments for or against certain breeds of cattle. 



But why keep pure-bred cattle instead of natives? Some one may say, we 

 often have native cows that are as good milkers as your pure-bred animals and 

 just as large and handsome. I would say because there is no fixedness of type 

 among natives, and they do not transmit their characteristics with any certainty 

 to their offspring. Farmers in breeding native cattle Avill generally take any 

 animal that is fine looking from which to breed regardless of points that he 

 wishes to perpetuate. The law that like produces like will not work with much 

 certainty, but he will very likely have in his herd cattle representing different 

 characteristics for a dozen generations. 



The various breeds have been brought to their present perfection by a long, 

 studied, and systematic course of breeding, and some of the experience has been 

 dearly bought. Mr. John Price, the great Hereford breeder, tried his hand for a 

 time and by making one cross to increase the size of his cattle lost all the labor 

 of years and was compelled to return to his original selection and stick to it. 

 In Short Horn breeding, Charles Colling, who first brought the race into prom- 

 inent notice, took the utmost pains to find the finest cattle, and gathering the 

 cream of the best tribes in the north of England, he developed his herd to which 

 as a pure fountain we trace all the best blood of to-day. Many of these animals 

 were from herds that had been bred carefully for many years. For instance. 



