*r 



THE AGRICULTURAL GAZETTE. 



and immediately trie uoi-wait-i i«p *» i M ..«.w, "~. :„ , ; 

 Sows from it and along the cistern in which the full milk howls 

 are standing till it rises to the height of the holes perforated in 



pine ; when the new milk is brought in it is set up when warm . 

 P 1 immediately the hot-water tap is turned, when the water 



ra from it and alon ; 



are standing till it rise— — - — r — o _. ..- . 



the tube, and then flows through the same. The tap is open so 

 Ion- as the supolv of hot water lasts ; when this is exhausted and 

 the°water in the cistern has cooled, the plug is drawn, arid the 

 whole of the water escapes, leaving the cistern empty. At this 

 season the trellis window is closed by a wooden shutter, and the 

 hi door communicating with my kitchen is kept open. By these 

 contrivances my dairy attains a temperature in winter of 52° to 54°. 

 I superintended the experiment when first tried one evening. The 

 next morning my dairy maid thus accosted me : " Master, it is 

 quite wonderful" this morning, I have more cream from stand- 

 ing one meal than before from three." When the churning 

 day came, the result was a yield of butter of 26 oz. from 

 16 quarts of new milk, being equal to what I had found in 

 summer. Thus from a change of temperature solely and without 

 any change of cows, or in their food, my quantity of butter was 

 increased 60 per cent. But this is not the only advantage of the 

 plan : I have already remarked, that along with the hot-water 

 pipe, one with cold water passed through my dairy. At the 

 approach of summer a pipe inserted into this with a tap close by 

 that of hot water is turned, allowing the cold water to circulate 

 in the like manner among the bowls of milk, till the cistern was 

 filled to near 3 inches deep, when it again escapes through the 

 perforated tube. This operation is continued through the hot 

 weeks of summer, the tap being regulated so as to discharge a con- 

 stant trickling of cold water, which is, of course, escaping through 

 the tube at the other extremity, the milk bowls standing in water 

 of the depth of near 3 inches during the whole of the summer 

 season. I am thus enabled to allow my milk to remain two or 

 three meals without becoming sour, and can sell it at the price 

 stated, Id. per quart. The advantage I gain from this is even 

 greater than what I derive from the increased temperature during 

 winter. These arrangements have been in operation several 

 years, during which I have occasionally tested the yield of butter, 

 and have always found it similar, varying only from 25 to 27 oz. 

 from 16 quarts of milk, the greatest amount being observed in the 

 month of December last, when it was found to be fully 27 oz. 

 from 16 quarts. I may here remark that my milch cows are 

 supplied in summer and In winter with food suited to their wants 

 and to the office they are performing — the production of whole- 

 some and nutritive milk. Since I adopted this mode of regulating 

 the temperature of my dairy, I have read a lecture given before 

 the Royal Society, by Captain Carr, an Englishman, who 

 resides on an estate which he has acquired in Mecklenburg, 

 in which country the produce of fanning is chiefly directed to 

 the production of butter, which is their main source for money 

 returns, and where, as appears from Captain Carr/s description, 

 the arrangements of the dairy with regard to the production of 

 butter are carried out with the greatest perfection, and in which 

 regulation of the temperature is one of the chief aims. Captain 

 Carr states that by artificial heat they effect a temperature 

 during winter of 60°. Now, with my present means, 1 am not 

 able to attain more than 52° to 55°; but as I have not during 

 summer, when the temperature of my dairy sometimes exceeds 

 60% found a greater proportionable yield of butter, I am led to 

 conclude that the degree of temperature I have stated (52° to 55 c ) 

 enables me to acquire the whole of the butter which the milk 

 contains. I may here remark that my dairy produce is under 

 such control that any considerable variation in the quantity and 

 quality of my milk cannot escape observation for more than a 

 few days. If my dairy treatment afford superior results to those 

 in the treatises to which I have referred, I may be allowed to 

 explain my views of the causes by which these are influenced. 

 The principal one I take to be the affording to the cow an ample 

 though (in consideration of cost, if not of effect also) not an ex- 

 cessive supply of each element of food, suited to her requirements, 

 constitution, and purpose. The milch cow may he said to have a 

 twofold occupation in using her food— the production of milk, 

 and the maintenance of her condition. The former is the 

 favourite one ; if the food supplied be inadequate for both pur- 

 poses, the defective elements are diverted to the milk at the 

 expense of her flesh, fat, and probably of her bone material also. 

 That I have effected this may, I think, be safely assumed by 

 what I have already stated, namely, that my cows, under all 

 circumstances, maintain and improve their condition. I do 

 not insist upon it that the materials I am using are the only 

 cnes by which this desideratum can be effected ; but I do 

 think that its due performance is requisite to ensure the greatest 

 and most complete produce from a cow, of which she is capable. 

 The remarkable quality of the cream I am disposed to ascribe 

 to the character of the vegetable oil, fa which particular my 

 winter food differs most materially from that commonly used. 

 I find that butter on analysis varies considerably in its properties 

 of murgevine and elain fats. I have seen this attributed to the 

 difference of temperature of the season, that the summer butter 

 contains more of the elain, the winter more of the murgevine 

 property. In the month of April of this year, when conversing 

 with Mr. John Simpson, of Ripley, a sober-minded observant 

 farmer, whose repute as such has gained the attention of his 

 rector, the Rev. Mr. Thompson, and also who consults him on his 

 farming operations, he told me he and a neighbour of his who 

 had observed my mode of treatment of dairy cows, of which they 

 had found particulars in a publication to which I occasionally 

 contribute, the Garden^ Chronicle, had been surprised at the 

 consequent change in the appearance of the cream and butter- he 

 described it as being that from ordinary winter to rich summer 

 butter. The difference in the consistency of cream on different 

 pastures is very observable. Within two miles of this place 

 is a small pasture at Wharfside, Otley, in the occupation of Mr 

 Garnett, which has long been noted for the richness and solidity 

 of its cream. AYhen I formerly travelled in Germany I well 

 recollect on the road between Dresden and Toplitz at a 

 station ^ near the boundary of Saxony, having been treated 

 with rich milk and eream ; it was evidently considered a 

 rarity, as all guests, whether by Eilwagen, post or other 

 conveyance, were invited to partake of it. The cream resembled 

 in consistency and appearance the description I have given of that 

 of my own dairy. I made the tour several times at intervals of 

 some years, when the like treatment was afforded; it could only 

 be ascribed to the peculiar quality of the herbage in the vicinity 

 of Peterswaldau, which is, if I rightly recollect, the name of the 

 place. I have now to state that at the present time, when my 

 cows have become accustomed to Grass, and consume much less 

 of the steamed food, there is a decided change in the quality of 

 the cream ; a jar which when filled so as to be conveniently 

 removed from the dairy to the scullery, where the churning is 

 performed, say an inch from the top, and which the twentieth 

 quart of water will cause to overflow, yielded during the winter 



lT! 01 i^ ,, oll{ l 6 oz ' £ ives only at present, from a like filling, 

 lo to 16 rolls of butter. The volume of cream is somewhat in- 

 creased, but scarcely in the extent to compensate for the superior 



^ff^nfv.H y * Wint r cream * * am thus led t0 think that the 

 crffm .U w ieS °J ve & etable °Us influence the quality of the 



W*V?£un£j n ° ff , P T d t0 the "^deration of the com- 

 S£n XI £?" . ,a 7 res , ults of m J treatment, and I feel called 



W Leen stateS %%*"? ? b8erViD & that ^Vy erroneous views 

 «tlnd*nt on m^ £ 7 T S .°? iety to th « effect that the only result 

 «p£^ ** lament of the manure. To 



«ffl u^?££ri£ •SffiSK'iS f00d ' 



auce alone will be scarce! vadmiX*^ e ^" lky f * rm pro " 



property which the chemi! 7 w«l «^XK^ f tlce . to # ?™ J? 6 

 condition of a store animal : it U Mess coi {£ ?f n,a ™ tai,ll "& the 

 food supplied for the dairy ^rji * ordinary 



food 



lemaric, mac inoiigu i look on mJ ««- u — , ^ 



and watch his proceedings; thoSh YhaW^n^ fft ™ 

 aistance with the lik* nhLi ITfff* h " e Celled to a 



Bainnesse, Heal, or on other farms across the Tweed, I should 

 be recognised by the well-known occupiers as a former visitor in 

 quest of information ; yet in regard to the treatment of live 

 stock the tendency of my experience is to strengthen my reliance 

 on the chemical composition of food, and I now look to the ana- 

 lysis of an able chemist with greater interest than to the practice 

 of others, or to the many feeding experiments which are yearly 

 published. I now give you the results of my treatment on the 

 different classes of animals, and commence with the cows for 

 which I pay the highest price in proportion to their quality and 

 condition, those near to calving. Now on comparing the price I 

 have paid for some years back with that realised when sold, and 

 taking into account the sum I obtain for the calf, which I sell 

 when a few days old, and deducting 10*. for its keep, I find these 

 cows fetch on an average more by 31. to 5/. each than what I pay 

 for them; at the same time I am purchasing from dairymen 

 similar cows, but which have undergone impoverishment by ordi- 

 nary treatment at less by 3/. to hi. each than had been paid for 

 them. I do not overstate the matter when I claim a gain in com- 

 parison with ordinary treatment of 6Z. 55. ; if I allow them to 

 average 50 weeks in hand it leaves 2s. 6d. for each, for the extra 

 feeding. I also gain a saving in time ; instead of a course of 

 feeding which would be requisite to furnish the impoverished 

 cow for the market, my cows are draughted off within a few weeks 

 of becoming dry. At times my purchasers select them as fit for 

 their purpose before they are quite dried, but beyond this I perceive 

 an advantage in the quantity and also in the quality of my milk. I 

 think it is not the least remarkable feature of my treatment that 

 the milk from my stall or winter food is equal in quantity, whilst 

 in the various experiments it has rather the advantage in quality 

 as compared with that from Grass or summer feeding. Of the 

 next class, the cows bought are in incipient calf, giving 6 to 7 

 quarts per day each, but which invariably increases on my treat- 

 ment. I mention those of which I gave the weight when bought 

 and after they had calved ; these show a gain of 180 lbs. each, and 

 which cost respectively 121. 10s., 121. 12s., and 131. 2s. 6tf., would 

 have readily fetched 181. each, indeed I could not have purchased 

 cows of equal quality and condition for this sum when near calv- 

 ing. I now mention another advantage of what is called high 

 feeding of dairy cows, it enables me to milk them close up to 

 calving time. I rarely dry my cows which I have had a sufficient 

 time in hand to furnish them properly till within a month of 

 calving; this gives me a month more for milking than I should 

 think advisable with cows in low condition, a practice in unison 

 both with experience and common sense. I now come to a third 

 class — the cows which I purchase from dairymen giving a low 

 yield of milk, say 6 quarts per day ; in regard to these, I find, with- 

 out exception, that with me their yield of milk increases in the 

 course of a week or two about 2 quarts per day. These cows, 

 being in a barren state, hold much better than when in calf to 

 their yield of milk, and rarely get below 5 quarts per day when 

 fat. Now, I have shown by weighing through a lengthened 

 period, that with a yield of milk which will not average less 

 than 6 quarts per day, they gain at the rate of 7 lbs. to 9 lbs. 

 each per week. I think I may admit that the feeding of this 

 class of animals is attended with profit ; it exceeds much what 

 I obtain from mere fatting. The cost of the auxiliary food which 

 I am using, including that of coal and labour, will be about 3s. 

 a week for each cow. I now call attention to the profit from 

 manure which has been insisted upon to your Society, and 

 responded to by conductors of agricultural publications, who, 

 if they do not possess, ought to acquire the means of dis- 

 criminating and calling attention to such statements as 

 are sound and worthy of approval, as the only advantage 

 that I derive from high feeding. Now, I entertain a dif- 

 ferent persuasion. I hold this advantage to be, compara- 

 tively speaking, a minor one. In my former statement I 

 attempted to show what portion of the elements of the extra food 

 which are of value for manure are carried off in the milk. In 

 the class of full milk there will be little left for the enrichment 

 of the manures, still there is something, as a cow maintaining 

 her weight and condition will doubtless give richer manure than 

 when losing flesh. In the other stages the comparative value of 

 the manure is somewhat greater; yet, if I allow 3 lbs. per day of 

 my extra food, or 21 lbs. per week, to go to the manure, and this 

 is really more than I should feel satisfied with, the value of these 

 21 lbs., taking into account -the loss by exudation, will, in manure, 

 be about 6rf. If we compute the value of manure from a cow 

 under ordinary treatment as worth Is. Gd. per week, and add the 

 Gd. per week for extra food, the result will be 2s. per week, which 

 is about equal to what I have found my cattle manure to be, on 

 the analysis of Prof. Way. I cannot entertain or understand 

 the teaching of those who insist that the only advantage of high 

 feeding is one of manure. What does this amount to? Nothing 

 less than that those who supply their animals with extra food, 

 and amongst these may be comprised almost all the first class of 

 farmers, are employing a ready means of converting their 

 shilling into less than sixpence. It will be found that substances 

 used as food, when deprived of their more valuable attribute, 

 food for cattle, and retaining only that of food for plants, lose 

 more than half their value, whilst if you convert them into milk, 

 beef, or food for man, their value is increased in much greater pro- 

 portion. I hold it then to be a sound theory, and one which I have 

 sought to carry into practice, to convert my produce as much as 

 possible into food for man, and to increase, rather than to enrich 

 my manures.— Thomas Hobsfall, Burley Hall, July 3, 1855. 



I now supply the following particulars, with the view more 

 clearly to explain the results of my treatment on stall or winter 

 feeding. Two cows, which calved in September, the one a 3-year 

 old light heifer, yielded soon alter 14 quarts per day. The other, 

 after her third calf, yielded at the rate of 18 quarts per day. In 

 the month of June they were found to give respectively 10 and 

 14 quarts per day. Their weights were— 



Oct. 31st. June 22nd. 



cwt. qrs. lbs. cwt. qrs. lbs. lb. 



Heifer ... 8 1 9 2 gain in weight 140 



9 2 10 2 „ „ 112 



Taking the former to have averaged 12 quarts per day #. d. 



At 2d. »i4 o 



Taking the latter to have averaged 16 quarts per day 18 8 



The yield of excrement 5 cwt. 1 qr. per week, will be fully at the 

 rate of 2a. each per week ; the cost of the extra food may be 

 assumed at Zs. Gd. per week each, as they would get more than an 

 average. The milk of these two, tested by the lactometer in the 

 month of June, was of superior richness. The gain in richness 

 of manure, consequent on high feeding, I shall not estimate at 

 more than 6d. per week. Two cows— one bought in September 

 tpr 101. 105., the other somewhat before for 121.— each increased to 

 about 8 quarts per day, and were continued in milk till the close 

 of March, when their yield was reduced to about 5 quarts each 

 per day. They weighed — 



In September. in May and June. 



8 cwt. Oqrs. lbs. 10 cwt. 2 qrs. Olbs. 



rm. r 10 * 4 13 1 



The former was sold in May for 187. 10s., leaving ...£800 

 For milk during 24 weeks, 6*. per week 7 4 



tive property to what is found requisite m m ■ 



of the animals in store state and^uKSpl^ ** -^. 

 it not then appear that the other results a?e m^ 5 ^^ 

 the extra food ? ls are tt *»dy deriv^S 



Thoius Hoifc..^ 



II. Mr. Scott's Statement 



*U 



pie 



Cross, 



SlJ^Jte} I™ 1 * wm ^^7^^^!^^^ 



T- a- a r W m * Iunner . eIu cidation of hispracu*.W 

 this did not appear to my mind to be the case IdSnr " 

 address myself to his two commentaries on that it* nf-J 

 of the 30th of May which related to his re^rKS 



*£ 



national 



those- commentaries Mr. Horsfall appea'rs to^TowTSLi 

 find flaws ln^my statement than to simplify and ~tn 3?L 



m 



that would be obtained on this quantity by raisinTth^^uSf 

 per lb. in price. Further on I state - that the averWiSS* 

 duce of a first-rate cow, well kept throughout a iLZTT 

 months, or 270 days, seldom exceeds 2700 quarts of milkilfc. 

 2624 lbs. of butter. This Mr. Horsfall utterly ignores altbSS 

 262* lbs. of butter is the point he should have dealt irS/M? 

 Horsfall further, in defiance of my stated figures i m m 

 that the 196 lbs. of butter is the produce of 300 days' naT^S 

 thus increases my quantity of milk relative to tatter ni 

 thereby creates a disparity, favourable to himself af t^T 

 between his produce and that of other dairy farmers, vnidS 

 not appear in my paper, and did not previously in reality ofc. 

 Mr. Horsfall must iu candour admit that this 1% lbs. of tat* 

 forms no part of my case in which I deal specially with Mm, mi 

 that no mention of 300 milking days is made by me. Tbentf 

 and original question, as raised by Mr. Horsfall, is the 

 economy of his mode of feeding, and the amount of his p* 

 The announcement of a return of 25 oz. of butter per qwttf 

 cream led us at first to believe that he had exemplifie^taUl 

 practice, a system by which the ordinary dairy tat 

 could increase his profits. Investigation has proved this to 

 be an entire fallacy. Mr. Horsfall's cows do not appor 

 to produce more milk in a year than other ordinary n3 

 managed cows, and while from 10 quarts of his milk heeitnai 

 15.78 oz. of butter, I have shown from the average of a 

 of trials in different counties-— with different kinds of 

 under diversified management, and not got np for txpri» 

 ment, a produce of 15.68 oz, of butter from an equal 

 of milk. lba. 



His annual produce from a cow is 



x\S 3 L, til IlbL 999 #•• ••• ... ••• ••• tti *™ 



Leaving'in his favour on a single cow for a whole year, \M 

 only. I abstained from taking the individual examples a4M 

 by me, several of which 1 was personally acquainted *m\ 

 because the produce in several cases so far exceeds Mr. IlantfTi 

 — thus, from 10 quarts of milk :— 



One batch of cows yielded ... • 19.70 oz of bdte 



Another 168* * 



Another 22.00 „ 



Another *7.4 _ 



Another --- — 1632 



• •• 



«•• 



• •• 



• •• 



• • « 



"Which, on an average, is 



Whereas Mr. Horsfall's yield is only 



5 -J- 92.28 



... 1845 

 15.78 



t • ■ 



2.67 



Leaving him minus --- ,- j^ 



on 10 quarts of milk. I merely recapitulate tb« •■ 

 to show the logical absurdity of picking out WJ 

 paper 196 lbs. of butter, and after arbitrarily dwj 

 it with imaginary figures of his own, presenting wimm 

 as my case. The editor of the Agricultural Gamw 

 sues the same course when he remarks, ' If the soon 



-• ** i a- - a-1-~~ f!nm /lATTinfl 1. Jii. ' 



higher 



r^s-breds V&J** 

 mTMr. Horsfall I fW 



the average of Mr. Scott." Now if the 

 in the same table are taken for comparison, mi. "^"^ig 

 of butter from milk falls one-fourth short of my avenge, 

 the cross-breds are taken alone, one-third. But ^^mm 

 Mr. Horsfall's average produce of milk per day is ^°V£ ^ 

 10 quarts, yielding 15.78 oz. of butter, the ' P^Jf *!?&; 

 horn in my paper is 17 quarts per day, yiel^ng " ofc, ^ 

 and of the cross-bred 10 quarts, yielding 22 ^[."Jw^ 

 in the case of the other two cows in Cheshire ^frielfi 

 the daily produce of the one was 40 q uart ^ ot n °J£ itfftf 

 2 6-7ths lbs. of butter, and of the other 36 ^^ mi 



to*** 



I merely mention them to show the di«ngL™ 

 exclusively selecting those of an opposite c . na J^. r, fi 

 a desired case. The editor of the ^^"J?W tm * 

 remarks, that « Mr. Horsfall's Jifld of bu m w j, 

 cream thrown up is unprecedented ly large. ^ ^ 



should at the same time remember the fact ^ 



tity of cream thrown up is unprec edently s©w i, ^ 

 0.64 parts of a quart off 10 quarts of milk, wherets ^^ 

 extract is 1.27 quarts. Up to the present t im jwe ^ m 

 left to infer that the extra richness of Mr.^ 1 • &&& 

 simply be the result of a little manual dJ^fW dt0m i 

 Nor must it be overlooked that Mr. HorsfeH ism ^^ 

 yield of 3000 quarts of milk P^ /o w (repr^ennn ^ 



his butter) is not an ascertained fact, take n from a J ^^ 

 daily register, but only an estimate « <w l ^mmj 



think is not more than a moderate av.rag eondw tj ^^ 

 maintained." If Mr. Horsfall brought 1 orw aro ^ ^ 

 fact of his having obtained 25 oz. of ^ ter resll , t f hiig? 

 cream, under the impression that this was i. lfla y e diijfl 

 system of feeding, and that it was a new and r ^^ * 

 1 think he must now admit that .lie wa> ghown tbe£ 

 coming to such a conclusion, and tnai i m«f?5 



produce of butter from milk is ^^ t 'uch !*»» ? 2 

 exceeded by ordinary dairy ^T^nmnipuUthig the cm* 

 can.be obtained by certain mr dee of manipii t 



of the numerous returns which I ^e °btauieo,^ + , 

 to the Council, tends to conhrm. WW* f ql , a rto. - 

 age produce of butter in Devonshire tiom*. h ^ m 

 it 22 oz., the milk required to produce tni ^ e ™_ 

 quarts. Mr. Horsfall has stated to-day i qa ote4J^ 



made at the Minister Model Farm If** par ^ ij^ 



SS* 



aN 



Irel*a*} 



W 



The latter was sold in June for 22Z. Is., leaving 

 For milk during 24 weeks, 6s. per week . . , 



15 4 



.. £10 1 

 7 4 



[UM-— 



Model 



c * rI ^ iM^ 



ine careiui umiiuhm *« ""'TV". 1r *i lPV may w» lC J**A if ^* 



registered and .ttejted. I th»k ttayn. 7 *£"£%, 



Glasnevin, and the Wnnster moub. tion 3 ck 



the careful manner m ^.ch all he ^ be , *, 



• »• 



17 ^ O 



The excrement would he richer, and its value may be assumed at 

 25. 4d. per week. The enhanced value of the manure I shall not 

 be disposed to estimate at more than 8d. per week or for the :>4 

 weeks U 2*. 8c*. The extra food will have cost at the rate of 3*. 

 per week each. 1 he ordinary f .rm food has consisted of— 

 12 lbs. of meadow hay each per week. 



10 lbs. Bean and Oat Straw and shells of Oats per week. 

 32 lbs. roots, Mangold, &c, per week. 

 This ordinary farm produce will be found abou equal in nutri- 



ootamea inis bchmjh, »"~ -~— 

 average 16 oz. of butter, whereas 



£- 



from 



t taKCD y- twf . * 



ledgm 



,»„ the closet f' c ^ber« •#■ 

 e prefer them. \™*> ^.t U*" 

 e r P ,he Irish static* ^^ 



country nas no, ™ .-come a good * ^fuMJ "gSfiS 



we are indebted to it for » n ?,f »Kit,"»l «tf"«S ?**£ 

 ments no* being made at its a*ncm rinc iple*»*»£ ^ 

 Board of National Edncat.on on tMP dftiry &** 

 farming. To show, howerer how i«» 



