AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
11 
1878. j 
high feeding may have rendered them unfit 
for ordinary farm treatment. So far as our ex¬ 
perience and observation extend, grade pigs 
are hardier, more vigorous, and every way bet¬ 
ter, when kept solely for producing pork, than 
thepure-breds. But you must always use pure¬ 
bred boars. This, with good, strong, vigorous 
sows and liberal feeding, is the great secret 
of success in raising good pigs for the butcher. 
Dutch or Holstein. —Much misunderstand¬ 
ing occurs regarding the propriety of designating 
Dutch stock as Dutch or Holstein; just as some 
time ago, and even now, but in a less degree 
than formerly, the terms Jersey and Alderney 
were confused. It is now agreed that the gene¬ 
ral term Alderney, as relating to stock from the 
Alderney group of islands, shall be dropped, 
and the specific term Jersey, as relating to 
•took from the island of Jersey in particular, 
shall be adopted. This is correct. In the same 
manner these black and white cattle called Hol¬ 
stein or Dutch were originally Holstein, ns the 
stock came from thence at first, but now, being 
more closely identified with Holland, and other 
breeds being common in Holstein, to call them 
Dutch would be a better distinctive nomencla¬ 
ture, although not more correct in reality. As 
a matterof convenience, and for the prevention 
of confusion, they should be simply Dutch, for 
before long we may have other Holstein cattle 
in the country, just as we have now Guernseys 
and the real and positive Alderneys, both of 
them, with Jerseys, having been known at one 
time under the general term Alderneys. In the 
mean time, we have Dutch or Holstein, or either, 
as the case may be, and the battle for name is 
now being fought out. 
Ogden Farm Papers.—No. 35. 
[This paper was written for December, but on account 
of the room required by the index, we were nnable to 
publish it then. The matter is however equally season¬ 
able now. Of course when the writer speaks of “ this 
year," he refers to 1872.—Ed.] 
What a wrong-ended year this has been ! 
With us, at least, the early part was cold and 
dry, then came showers with intense heat, and 
then superabundant rain, too little sun, and a 
poor prospect for the growth of newly-seeded 
grass and winter grain. If we could have had 
these rains in April and May, and only a reason¬ 
able amount of water now, we should have had 
a much better stock of hay to commence the 
winter on, and enough fall feed for our needs. 
Now we have more than we need, and, as it has 
grown in the sunless, short days of a chilly au¬ 
tumn, it seems not to have the nutrient value of 
the shorter herbage on which “ October butter” 
is generally made. In our own case, while the 
quality is fully maintained, the quantity has 
fallen off materially. 
The cows are now (Oct. 20th) at pasture day 
and night, and on grass big enough for June. 
They fill themselves, look well, and seem con¬ 
tented, yet within a month (since we stopped 
feeding corn-fodder) they have fallen off quite 
one third in the amount of their butter. I think 
this would not have been the case if the autumn 
had been less wet, and a little warmer. Either 
this is the explanation, or the value of corn- 
fodder is more than even I, with all my faith in 
it, had supposed. I had never thought of valu¬ 
ing it above October grass, but the fact remains 
that when we gave up corn-fodder, and over¬ 
ripe at that, there was an immediate falling off 
in the butter product which was too great to be 
ascribed to the effect of weather on the cows or 
to any other cause not directly connected with 
the food. Wheat-bran in increased quantity 
did not make up the deficiency, not even when 
a little corn-meal was mixed with it. 
It is very difficult—practically impossible— 
to determine the cause of such a falling off in 
product, but I incline to the opinion that the 
change from corn-fodder to gras3 cut down the 
supply of butter-making material to such an 
extent that the subsequent increase in richness 
of food was not able to restore the yield. We 
shall have to wait for next spring’s calving-time 
to regain our full product. 
I had just written the foregoing when I received 
from my brother-dairyman, Mr. Mackie, of Mas¬ 
sachusetts, the following statement: 
“My milking herd for the week ending Sun¬ 
day, October 13th, consisted of 13 cows and 
heifers. 7 of the cows were from 4 to 10 years 
old; 3 were 3 years old; 3 were 2 years old. 
Four of the cows and one of the heifers had 
calved in September; one of the cows is to 
calve December 14th, and two others arc nearly 
dry. Total milk during7 days, 1631 lbs.; average 
daily yield of milk per cow, 17'Vis lbs. Total 
blitter during 7 days, 89) lbs.; average weekly 
yield of butter per cow, about 6J lbs. About 
18i lbs. of milk have made 1 lb. of butter. Cows 
at pasture, with no feed but grass. Milk set in 
shallow pans.” 
Except in the amount of milk needed to make 
a pound of butter (about 8) quarts) this is as 
good a return for this season as I have ever 
known. The cows are all pure Jerseys, of the 
best quality, and the grass on which they feed 
is that of one of the most fertile river bottoms 
in New England. It isonly by keeping the very 
best cows, and by keeping them in the very 
best manner, that anything approaching this 
result is possible. That is to say, it is a result 
that is only possible to thoroughly good fann¬ 
ing. But does not this very fact make it clear 
that we ought to have a good deal more thor¬ 
oughly good farming? 
Would it be too much to say that the very 
general “2-cents-a-quart" farming is not farming 
at all—only a sort of day-laborer occupation that 
brings a scanty subsistence as the reward of a 
very unintelligent exercise of tiie muscles, and 
a very much neglected investment of capital ? 
Mr. Mackie could very easily make a contract 
for his butter, for ten years to come, at 50 cents 
per pound—and for ten times as much as he 
can make. All last winter he sold at 75 cents 
per pound, and he sent it the whole length of 
Massachusetts for a market. At this price (50c.) 
his milk would bring him nearly 6 cents a quart, 
and his cows would surely yield him, in butter 
alone, not less than $120 each per annum—and 
that without fancy prices, only what really ex¬ 
cellent butter will bring at any time, if only the 
dealer can be sure in advance that it will he good. 
As is veiy well known, the average return of 
the butter-making cows of the country (even of 
those kept on regular butter-dairy farms) is less 
than $50 a bead. Yet these cows, if well grown 
and well kept, cost as much to raise and as much 
to keep as Mr. Mackie’s do, and there is as much 
labor and expense needed in the manufacture 
and sale of the butter. If fair wages were paid 
the fanner and his wife for the work done about 
the herd and in the dairy, and if the food were 
charged at half its value, it would he found that 
the $50 cow would not more than pay expenses. 
The $120 cow is of course a source of profit. 
Now, if a day-laborer and a dairy-maid are so 
fortunate as to own a home of their own, and to 
earn their wages in an employment where they 
are independent and their own masters, they 
are to be congratulated on their good luck, but 
they are not to be praised as very intelligent 
and enterprising fanners; they are only indus¬ 
trious and worthy people, who do their duty as 
they understand it, but without understanding 
it very well. 
It is sometimes asked, What would be the 
result if all the butter in the country were “gilt- 
edged”—would it not then all be sold at a 
“ 2-cents-a-quart ” price ? Perhaps it would; we 
shall never know. We may preach until the 
millennium comes, and we shall never do away 
with bad butter, nor with bad farming. The 
great mass of men in our craft, as in all others, are 
stupid and doltish. They only move in the wake 
of their mote progressive brethren—perhaps 
scoffing as they follow—keeping relatively about 
so far behind all tiie time. There is no doubt 
that tiie butter of the world will be vastly im¬ 
proved as time rolls around, but there will al¬ 
ways be the same relative difference between the 
“gilt-edged” and the “ wheel-grease” that there 
now is—a difference that will manifest itself in 
every branch of farming. Tiie mass of farmers 
will always be slow old fogies, sneering and 
jeering at “the likes of US’* who write for agri¬ 
cultural papers, and holding back against all 
improvement as long as their dull ideas of their 
interest will allow; and the few will be ready 
and eager for till substantial improvement, and 
by their help th^cause will get bravely on. Of 
course, my dear reader, you at e one of the 
few whom I praise; the many, whom I don’t, 
are only those who never read my papers, and 
whom I therefore run no risk of offending. I 
am glad to feel that in all my writing I am ad¬ 
dressing myself only to the best men of the 
farming community, for it is only they whom it 
is worth while to address. A mining engineer 
once said to me, when we were discussing the 
ventilation of a coal mine, down which I pro¬ 
posed to force a current of air, “Air is like a 
rope—you can pull it, but you can’t push it;” 
and lie advised that the power be applied to 
drawing the air out of the mine, when all nature 
would be busy in supplying the abhorred vacu¬ 
um. The same principle applies in agricultural 
writing. We may push at the grand community 
of “2-cents-a-quart” men, and they will budge 
never an inch; but if we apply our whole 
force to a good pull on the other end of the 
procession, and urge the leaders onward, the 
train will follow as surely as thathumau nature 
is ever bent on keeping within sight of its bell¬ 
wethers. 
I am preparing for a modification of my 
system of feeding, this winter, for the purpose 
of seeing the effect of bulkier feed in develop¬ 
ing the digestive apparatus of my young stock. 
As I have before mentioned, I find tliatiny two- 
year-old heifers, which last winter, when hay 
was dear and grain was cheap, had as concen¬ 
trated food as I considered it safe to give them, 
are all rather gaunt, or deficient in “ belly.” I 
think that they have, as a consequence, given 
less milk this season than they otherwise would 
have done, because they have had less stomach- 
capacity than if they had, during the past win¬ 
ter, had mote bulky food. I may be mistaken, 
and indeed my position is disputed by some in¬ 
telligent feeders, with whom I have discussed 
the matter; but I have an idea that if an animal, 
during its first two winters, is kept mainly on 
hay and other coarse fodder, so that it "Will he 
