AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
have never before heard it claimed that these ani¬ 
mals were coarse, and it is very certain that their 
reputation as stock getters has been equal to any 
nulls, we have ever had in Ohio. Were it not for 
the impropriety of mentioning individual herds, 
reference might be made to many well-known 
animals among their descendants in proof of this. 
The Bates Bull, Young Waterloo (2817), was 
equal to the above, but not superior. The same 
may be said of Comet Halley (1855), bred by Mr. 
Maynard, Acmon (1606), bred by Mr. Raine, and 
Barnby (1679), imported for Wm Renick, and bred 
by Mr. Bower. 
Young Waterloo and Earl of Darlington were, 
I think, the only Bates bulls, but neither of them 
was a Duchess, both being of the Princess tribe. 
I do not think it by any means certain that 
“Duchess” blood would be injured by an infu¬ 
sion of Whitaker blood. It appears that Mr. 
Bates himself did not think so, for his Duchess 
35th, illustrated in 3rd Vol. of Eng. Herd Book, 
was got by Gambier (2046), bred by Whitaker— 
Duchess 38th, also bred by Bates, was got by 
Whitaker’s celebrated bull Norfolk (2377), who 
was sire of imp. Prince Charles (2461), and Duke 
of Cleveland (1937), and by Mr. Bates’ out of 
Duchess 28th, was got by Whitaker’s bull Ber¬ 
tram (1716). Buckeye. 
[In order to have his reply, if lie had any, accompany 
the above, we sent a proof slip to “ Cattle Breeder,” 
and received the following, too late for the April No , 
when it should have appeared. Ed.] 
In reply to the above paper of Buckeye, I ex¬ 
plain : That in my remarks on the continuous 
breeding together of the Bates stock of the Ohio 
importation of 1834 after their arrival in ‘his 
country, I did not intend to reflect either upon 
the purity in blood, or the quality of the stock of 
the other breeders, which came out with them ; 
but simply to intimate that as the style of Mr. 
Bates’ stock was a fixed and marked one, giving 
character and individuality to his herd, it would 
have been wise to have so continued it in the fine 
climate and on the richer American soil, to which 
they had been newly introduced. 
Taken together, that importation of 1834 was a 
remarkably good collection of cattle—as a whole 
for its numbers—probably equal to any ever im¬ 
ported into the United States. Yet, when we 
undertake to analyze the blood of animals in their 
pedigrees, we must look to see whether, on the 
principles of physiology in breeding, if objection¬ 
able blood is found, such blood will not tell, or 
“crop out”—to use a geological term—in the 
appearance of their progeny. Thus, in Duke of 
York (1941) he, through his sire Frederick (1060), 
has a (lash of the “ Galloway cross ” in him, al¬ 
though his pedigree hack of Frederick is of the 
first quality. Prince Charles (2461) was without 
taint in his pedigree. Greenholme Experiment 
(2075), like Duke of York, through Frederick, the 
same sire, had a taint of Galloway ; Comet Hal¬ 
ley (1855) the same. Acmon’s pedigree was ap¬ 
parently perfect in Shorthorn blood, but had 
several widely different crosses in it: so with 
Barnby (1679). 
These were all good bulls, and,'with the excep¬ 
tion of the small fraction of Galloway cross—not 
enough to do much hurt—in those mentioned as 
having it, unexceptionable in blood and pedigree. 
They were also fine bulls in style and appearance. 
The Bates cattle, proper, of that importation, 
were the bulls, Earl ofDarlington(1944) and Young 
Waterloo (2817); and the cows, Rose of Sharon 
and Teeswater, all got by Belvidere (1706), the 
bull, which Mr. Bates has, since he obtained him, 
always insisted benefitted his herd more than any 
other he ever used, and in the persistent use of 
whose.blood his herd achieved an eminence, cer¬ 
tainly not second to any other Shorthorn herd in 
England. The pedigrees of these four animals, 
aside from Belvidere, run back, through their 
dams, into some of Mr. Bates’ best blood of other 
families, as the “Princess,” in part, of which 
Belvidere was mainly. 
I admit that my term “Duchess” was not 
strictly correct, for these imported Bates cattle 
were not of the original “Duchess ” blood ; but 
as Belvidere gave the Duchess family a great 
share of their recent celebrity, and his later 
Duchesses partook largely of his blood, although 
I might have made the distinction by name, the 
actual difference would be trifling. I beg “ Buck¬ 
eye ” to understand, not that I intended to cast 
the slightest odium on the other blood of the 1834 
importation, but to say that by breeding the 
“Bates” stock together, they would have better 
preserved their uniformity and distinctness, which, 
if good, I consider a high merit in nay herd. In 
the way they were subsequently bred, that nice 
individuality for which they were distinguished in 
Mr. Bates’ hands, was mostly lost. 
As to Gambier (2046), also Bertram (1716), the 
bulls Mr. Bates used in a very few instances, as 
named by Buckeye, Mr. Bates himself always re¬ 
gretted those crosses—although the bulls were 
good ones and of high reputation—as not assist¬ 
ing in the object he had in view in perfecting his 
herd. 
I have not the slightest wish to detract from 
the excellence of any herd of Ohio, or other Short¬ 
horns whatever. I incidentally mentioned, as I 
did, the Bates stock of the 1S34 importation to 
mark a position, which I still think a correct one, 
and I trust that no one will consider me as mak¬ 
ing an invidious distinction by calling the other 
bulls “coarser, and less highly bred,” only in a 
comparative degree. A Cattle Breeder. 
Written for the. American Agriculturist.—Prize Articles, 
The Dairy — V. 
THE CHURN-ITS FORM AND CONSTRUCTION. 
Of so simple a thing as a churn, most people 
might suppose that not a word need be said. But 
the experienced butter maker knows better, and 
each one has his preference. We have seen a 
great variety of churns, of every conceiveable 
pattern—patented and not patented—and after 
years of examination and trial, we think about as 
much of a patent churn of any kind as we do of a 
patent bee-hive. We wouldn’t have either, as a 
gift, and be obliged to use it. The simpler the 
form, and the manner of using it, the better. 
There are two kinds of churn most commonly 
in use among butter making families and dairy¬ 
men—the old time honored, upright dash-cliurn, 
and the barrel or revolving churn, both very 
simple in construction, and so well known as to 
need no description. The dash churn stands 
upright on its own bottom on the floor. The bar¬ 
rel churn stands on legs which set it up from the 
floor at a convenient bight to work the crank 
turning the inside wings. As to the size, that 
must depend on the quantity of cream, or milk to 
be churned, ranging from ten gallons to a barrel 
and a half, which the dairyman must decide for 
himself. The churn should be made of thorough¬ 
ly seasoned White Oak or White Ash staves. 
Some use White Pine, and Red Cedar ; but these 
are both resinous woods, from which the taste or 
smell can scarcely be washed or worn, while oak 
and ash are odorless and tasteless, and capable of 
being kept perfectly sweet and clean —indispensable 
requisites in a good dairy. The dash and handle 
of the upright, and the crank shaft, and wings of 
the barrel churn, should also be of oak or ash, 
139 
since they are strong as well as clean woods. 
Then they should be stoutly hooped with iron, 
made throughout “ upon honor,” and well painted 
outside. We have seen churns with a little ther¬ 
mometer inserted at one end to mark the tem¬ 
perature of the cream while churning, and which 
is claimed as a decided improvement. Now, 
while we do not wish to damage any one’s trade, 
we only say that this little appendage is of trifling 
account with any good butter maker, for two rea¬ 
sons. 1 st: Those little cheap thermometers are 
poor things usually, varying several degrees from 
the true temperature. 2nd : A good dairyman 
can tell the best temperature better by his own 
finger ; otherwise he should always have an accu¬ 
rate thermometer at hand, which he can at any 
moment plunge into the churn and get the exact 
temperature of the cream. To regulate this, ice, 
or hot water, according to the season should beat 
hand to govern the temperature, either of which 
may be kept in a tub in which the “ dash ” churn 
may stand, or applied directly by mixing with the 
cream in churning. 
THE .MANNER OF CHURNING. 
This may seem indifferent to some, but we as¬ 
sure them that on it much depends, in the quality 
of the butter. The temperature of the season will 
somewhat govern the rapidity with which the 
dash or crank is moved. A too rapid motion of 
either makes the cream frothy, and brings the 
butter accordingl\% lacking in consistence ; while 
the slower and more regular action brings the 
butteraceous particles of the cream solidly to¬ 
gether, Avitli less globules of fixed air in them, 
easier to draw together in the churn, and better 
to work after taken out into the bowl. 
Churning by hand in a large dairy, is usually 
considered hard work. At any rate, we always 
thought it so. Not only is it hard work, but 
patient work—no variety about it, which is a de¬ 
cided relief to some other occupations much more 
really laborious; and it is none the less so that 
the motion needs to be uniform and continuous 
from beginning to end. Therefore, churning 
should be done by persons of full strength, with 
thoughtfulness and patience about them to work 
uniformly throughout, from the commencement 
to bringing the butter. In large dairies hand 
churning is too expensive, unless assisted by ar- 
tifical means. A common “ spring pole”—a verv 
simple affair, which any one knows how to make— 
can easily be rigged to lighten the work of the 
dash churn at least one half; while a “ balance” 
wheel attached to the shaft of a revolving churn 
takes off half the strain of the wings as thev 
strike into the cream. These may be adopted, or 
not, as circumstances govern. 
But for large dairies, water, horse, or dog pow¬ 
er are decidedly the best. Where it can be con¬ 
veniently, and cheaply obtained, water power is 
preferable. Yet it must be under perfect control 
from freshets, and furnish a regular supply at all 
seasons, to be worth much ; and of the facts ap¬ 
pertaining to these requirements the dairyman 
must satisfy himself before attempting it. Indeed 
water power must be very available to make it 
pay, simply for churning purposes; and therefore 
as a rule, we would adopt the “pony” power, 
put up in the old fashioned bark or cider-mill prin¬ 
ciple of hitching the beast to the end of a sweep, 
the other end attached to an upright shaft, on 
which is built a cog, or spur wheel, playing into 
a pinion on a horizontal shaft, on which is a drum, 
or pully to extend a band On to the immediate pro¬ 
pelling power of the churn. The pony, ofcourse, 
travels in a circle, which should be not less than 
sixteen, for the smallest pony, and need not ex¬ 
ceed twenty-four feet for the largest horse. We 
