1 84a 



THE GENESEE FARM I ■: II. 



43 



"WHAT COWS SHOULD FARMERS KEEP? 1 ' 

 BV WILLI IH B LHFORD, JR. 



Under the heading above quoted Sanford P. 

 Chapman, in the October number of the Farmer, 

 (Vol. IX, page 242.) lias given us an able and quite 

 an elaborate article. Undoubtedly Mr. C, has 

 ■rt'il this question fully and correctly, so far as 

 he offers a rule for the consideration of breeders and 

 "judges at our Cattle Shows ;" but when he comes 

 to point to the place where "right stock'' can be 

 seen, in absence of the testimony, I, for one, shall 

 demur. 1 do not, however, question the value of Mr, 

 Vail's stock, "just to look at," or their ability to pay 

 the expenses of a " good journey'' for that purpose — 

 but does his herd contain such cows as farmers 

 should keep ? 



I have been taught in past volumes of the Genesee 

 Farmer, that, for dairy purposes, our common stock 

 is decidedly the best. Now, unless there has been 

 error in my instruction, "full-blood Durhams," 

 wherever found, are deficient in one and that the 

 most important qualification. Beside this, the policy 

 of farmers keeping Durham stock is questioned for 

 other reasons, — among which, it is said, they are 

 great consumers. In this principle, it will be 

 observed, is involved the quality of feeding. But if 

 Mr. Chapman will produce satisfactory information 

 of Mr. Vail's stock, or of that cow of his, of the 

 worth of which he says he "knows," showing the 

 management used — the kind, quality and amount of 

 food given, with the profits arising therefrom — he 

 will furnish to the readers of the Farmer an article 

 of deep interest, if not of real value. In doing so 

 he will also present us what we all desire in our 

 agricultural operations, viz : facts with jigures — 

 the practical with the theoretical. Dryden, 

 JY. Y., Dec, 1848. 



An article in last year's volume, headed " What 

 kind of Cows should farmers keep," is worthy of 

 serious consideration. After naming the several 

 qualities that make a good cow, your correspondent 

 says, he K never yet owned but one cow that came 

 any where near suiting him," and that was a full 

 blood Durham, for which he paid $150 in cash, and 

 thinks her w 7 orth twice that sum. No doubt your 

 correspondent has a fine cow ; nor am I disposed to 

 underrate that fine breed of animals, as a breed, but 

 I do deny that their value is so much greater than 

 any other breed. Suppose a man about commencing 

 the dairy business, should purchase forty just such 

 cows ; it would amount to the nice little sum of 

 $6,000. Allowing that said cows would produce 

 thirty-five dollars worth of butter and cheese each, 

 and you have as the product of one year $1,400. — 

 Deduct the cost of keeping and interest on capital 

 invested in cows, and you would have but a small 

 income — to say nothing of the depreciation of said 

 stock after they are seven years old, which would be 

 full fifteen per cent. I think it is worth twenty dol- 

 lars per head to keep such cows a year, which would 

 be $800, interest $420, which sum deducted from 

 $1,400, would leave $180. 



Here comes another man, who has purchased his 

 cows for one-fourth of said sum. They will make 

 an equal amount of buiter and cheese, and he has 

 $4,500 to purchase land, or invest in State stocks, 

 and is not weighed down hy debt and taxation. But 

 how stands the account : $1,400 worth of butter and 

 cheese — deduct expenses of keeping, $800 ; interest 



on cows, $105; which □ - 05 from $1,400, 



l-.-iws $405; inVivsl ,„, rnpital invested, $315: 

 these two sums added would amount to $810. i 

 leave it for the reader to judge which of these two 

 men would act most wisely. A. G. P. Lyons, 

 JY- Y,, Jan., 1849. 



"LUNAR INFLUENCE' -AGAIN. 



J!Y H. 



Messrs. Editors : — In the November number of 

 the Farmer is a somewhat equirming and rather 

 pie -crusty article from the pen Mr. J. \V . Dicki 

 in answer to a brief communication from me, 

 requesting information in respect to the cause of the 

 Tides. My inquiry was made in honest sincerity 

 and good faith, and I was not a little surprised at 

 the style and spirit of Mr. D.'s reply. I shall not, 

 therefore, answer Mr. D. in full, but simply make a 

 few remarks by way of explanation. And 



1st. "Modem Philosophy." Here Mr. D. audi 

 differ in our definition of the term. He calls "Davis' 

 Revelations," Uc,, "Modern Philosophy," which I 

 call modern "humbuggery," and if you choose modern 

 nonsense, with which he seems to be more familiar 

 than I am. If he wishes to see a specimen of what 

 I call "Modern Philosophy," in distinction from the 

 mysteries and absurdities of former times, or the 

 nonsense of the present age, he will find it in 

 " Arnott's Elements ef Physics," and even in most 

 of the treatises on Natural Philosophy, now in 

 general use. 



2d. Mr. D. regrets that I will not "argue the 

 question with him." I have no occasion, and no 

 wish to " argue the question with any one." I only 

 asked for information ; and although not "a farmer,'' 

 am still willing to receive it from any one who can 

 give it, even though he be " a farmer." 



3d. Mr. D. asks me to "define attraction." If he 

 will put a small magnet on a floating chip, or piece 

 of a shingle, and place it near another piece of iron 

 similarly situated, and watch their motion ; or sus- 

 pend two cannon balls by long cords, near each other, 

 or suspend one ball near the perpendicular surface 

 of a precipitous mountain, and watch the effect, he 

 will know as much about the nature of attraction, as 

 the best of us. But is it wise or philosophical, to 

 deny the existence of a thing that we cannot explain ? 

 If so, we must deny the existence of every thing, 

 even of ourselves. 



4th. Mr. D.'s taunting remark about my inference 

 from his acknowledgment of being a "farmer," is 

 entirely uncalled for and out of place ; and the still 

 more taunting one about my attachment to old 

 "notions," I leave without further notice. My 

 statement, that "I adhere to the Newtonian (theory) 

 of the tides, for want of a better, ought to have 

 shielded me from any such remark, as it was an 

 acknowledgment that I was ready to abandon it for 

 a better, which "better" I hopedD. could furnish. 



5th. Mr. D. says, " I did not intimate that I had 

 a better theory." I have read again his communi- 

 cations in the March number of the Farmer, and 

 can come to no other conclusion. But he denies it, 

 and I have no more to say about it. Yet if " the 

 laws of nature are always simple," I cannot see 

 why he has none. " Doivn East,' Dec, 1848. 



Agriculture, like the leader of Israel, strikes the 

 rock — the waters flow, and the famished people are 

 satisfied. She supplies all, she feeds all. 



