i89i 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER 
527 
weight of the extra water butter that his new feed has 
given him an increased richness of milk. 
3. If the answer to the first question is “Yes,” then, 
logically, the answer to the third should be “Yes.” But if 
anybody were to ask these two qnestlons of the same man 
on different days, and in regard to specific cows in the 
same herd, he would probably answer “Yes” to the first, 
and “ No ” to the second, for all farmers know by experi¬ 
ence that they cannot make their cows giving large quan 
titles of thin milk, change and give rich milk. In fact, 
we would consider one an idiot should he undertake to do 
anything of the kind, and yet this man will claim in the 
abstract that he can feed richness into the milk of the 
cow. 
In conclusion, allow me to repeat the offer which I have 
often made, that if any six farmers can agree on the char¬ 
acter of the ration which they claim is the best for feed¬ 
ing richness into a cow’s milk, and will also settle on the 
proper ration for feeding thinness into a cow’s milk, I 
shall be very glad to make a thorough test of the matter 
not only on our own herd, but on several others also. As 
a fact, when rations have been given us said to produce 
rich milk or thin milk, they have been very much mixed 
up, one man claiming that a certain feed, bran, for in¬ 
stance, gives rich milk, while another is equally positive 
that bran gives thin, watery milk. And in regaid to the 
effict of feed on the character of milk we find a wide 
variety of opinion, and a series of more than 1,000 tests 
which we completed 10 days ago seem to show conclusively 
that the popular idea in regaid to succulent pasture feed 
having an effect on the milk is decidedly wrong. 
Vermont Station. w. w. COOKE. 
What Is Breed But Feed? 
From study and obtervation I would say, feed and care 
develop the animals at our command, making it possible by 
selection to establish the breed. That food does markealy 
influence the animal that partakes of it, we cite Ville, a 
high French authority. In speaking of the district of 
Aveyron he divides it into two parts which he calls “ rye 
land” and “chalk land” and adds: “The 
inhabitants of the rye land or rye-eaters 
are puny, thin, angular, small in stature 
and ugly rather than good-lcoking, their 
domestic animals, resembling them in most 
of these points. The inhabitants of chalk 
land, who dwell upon a chalky soil, are 
well built, tall and handsome, rather than 
ugly. The domestic animals participate 
in the contrast; those raised in the rj e- 
growing country become fat when trans- 
feired to the chalky soil.” A Scotch proverb 
s»ys: “Breed goes in at the mouth.” I 
would rather eay brted is dependent upon 
feed. 
The capabilities of a breed, its limit of 
performance, is determined by a long line 
of feeding, breeding and judicious selec¬ 
tion. Given two varieties of corn, one cap¬ 
able of yielding 40 bushels; the other 100 
bushels of grain per acre, it would be 
folly to attempt by extra fertilization and 
care to raise the yield in a single year 
from the 40 bushel limit to 100. These 
qualities have been fixed by a long line 
of selection and feeding in a fertile soil; so with the 
individual cow, her characteristics and possibilities 
have been fixed by a long line of feeding, selection and 
breeding up to a certain point, beyond which that animal 
is not capable of performing. We may, how ever, bring her 
up to that limit. 
1. I think it may be possible to so select foods as to in¬ 
crease the fat in milk. It is not more the chemical com¬ 
position of foods than their physiological efface that we 
need to take into consideration in compounding feeding 
rations. (I refer now to the chemical composition of 
products as determined for foods.) No two foods seem to 
act physiologically in the same way in the animal system. 
In each experiment when I fed gluten meal the milk yield 
was increased, but the total fat was diminished ; on the 
other hand, the substitution of linseed meal resulted in 
lessening the milk yield, but considerably Increased the 
total fat. (It has been intimated that it was the increased 
oil of the linseed meal that gave the increase, to which I 
will now Incidentally reply that there was less oil in the 
new-process linseed meal fed than in the gluten meal) If 
the cow has been fed a well-balanced rat,on, the possible 
change in the fat in the milk would naturally be le.-s 
marked than would be the case with cows less judiciously 
fed. 
2. Certainly, there will be some change in the other 
solids of the milk, but it does not necessarily follow, as I 
haveshown in several experiments already published, that 
each constituent of the solids is to change in the same 
ratio. The per cent of fat may be changed to a greater 
extent than that of any other solid constituent of the 
milk ; on the other hand, the water in the milk may be 
changed with no material change in the total solids. 
3 I would not claim that quality is alone the immedi¬ 
ate result of feed. Each individual cow, like every steam 
boiler, has a limit beyond which it would be impossible to 
develop her. It is very probable, however, that few ani¬ 
mals ever reach this limit. Not all large milkers may be 
profitably developed as butter cows; yet from feeding trials 
I believe they may be much changed by judicious feeding, 
and then by selection become heavy butter producers in 
future generations. E. f. ladd. 
North Dakota Station. 
Each Cow Gives Typical Milk. 
1. In my dairy experience, I find that it makes no differ¬ 
ence how generously I feed the cows, they each keep right 
on giving the same kind of milk—possibly more of it—so 
far as I can judge. A heifer may improve in the quality of 
her milk until she becomes fully developed as a cow, and 
then the character of her milk becomes fixed, or substan¬ 
tially so. Milk varies in fat contents from day to day. 
Disturbing causes I think affect the milk fats more than 
any of the other solids ; but for an average for the season, 
the fats are not greatly, if at all, changed with respect to 
the cheese and sugar. I am not aware that there are any 
authentic tests made public that go to show or prove con¬ 
clusively that a cow can be fed so that the per cent of fat 
will be about normal in its relation to the other solids. 
2. Breed and individuality control the relation between 
the solids in milk, if the conditions are as in No. 1. So far 
as we can find it takes more fluid to obtain more solids. I 
think that after a certain point in quality has been reached, 
the further increase of solids stops, and the fluid maybe 
added to, making the milk relatively poorer. 
3. Cows making great records for milk and fed to the 
last limit, seem in the quality of their milk to answer No. 
3 in the negative. A cow may give so much thin milk 
that the total weight of fat solids may exceed the total 
weight of solids in another cow’s milk giving a much 
greater per cent of fats. The real question is, can a cow 
giving 2X per cent of fat in 80 pounds of milk daily.be 
made to give 80 ponnds of milk with five per cent of fat? 
and then the answer is, No. One example: A noted cow at 
a test gave daily about 67 pounds of milk. Her feed for 
fitting her for the test was as follows, daily: 10 pounds of 
oats. 12 pounds of bran, 2 pounds of corn meal, 2 pounds 
of oil meal and all the wilted corn fodder (with ears) that 
she would eat: the milk tested, fat solids, 2 44 per cent, 
total solids, not fat 8.61 per cent. Another cow fed the 
same ration ga/e 2.14 per cent of butter fat. A cow may 
give so much milk that the result will be a large amount 
of butter: 50 pounds of 2>^ per cent fat milk will make as 
much butter as 25 pounds of five per cent milk, so in that 
sense, a cow giving a large quantity of milk, may be a good 
butter cow, but her 50 pounds of milk can never by feed 
be made five per cent milk. As explained by Professor 
Armsby: “The quality of milk that a cow will give is de¬ 
termined by breed and individuality, and the amount she 
will give is determined by her feed ” JOHN GOULD. 
Strawberries. 
NOTES FROM THE RURAL GROUNDS. 
The R. N.-Y.’s Strawberry Report for 1 89 1. 
Michel’s Early (Bisexual) originated with J. G. 
Michel, of Judsonia, Ark. Plants sent to us by C. P. 
Bauer, of the same place, April 1, 1890. It has been sold 
under the name of Osceola, plants having been stolen from 
Mr. Michel. June 1: Bearing abundantly at this date. 
Jane 8 : Prolific; berries, small to medium size; scarlet, 
firm, good quality. Its chief value is in its quality and 
earliness. June 10: Berries are small. June 12: Still 
productive. June 19: Season past. Probably the best in 
quality of the earliest kinds. 
Howard’s No. 6 (Pistillate) from A. B. Howard, Belcher- 
town, Mass. Junel: First ripe this date. Heart-shape, 
scarlet, quite firm, sweet, mild, medium size, regular. 
Healthy plants. June 8: Petioles long. Berries ripen¬ 
ing freely. Scarlet to crimson in color, led flesh. Size 
medium. Not so sweet as in the earlier and drier season. 
June 10: Ripening freely. June 16: Vines very pro¬ 
ductive. Berries of uniform size, small but sweet. June 
27: Here and there a berry still ripening. 
Parker Earle.—The R N.-Y. has neither anything to 
add to nor to modify in what it has said regarding this fine 
berry. It should be tried in every part of the country. 
Pearl (Bis.)—June 1: Begins to ripen. Rather long, 
conical, heart-shape, often narrowing towards apex, some¬ 
times with a broad tip, sometimes slightly necked. Glossy 
crimson in color. Quite firm,red flesh, fine quality. Plants 
rather low-growing. Season medium. It is a fairly pro¬ 
ductive variety. 
Perfection (Bis.) from Fred. E. Smith, Hudson Centre, 
N. H., April 23, 1890: June 1: Often ripens unevenly. 
Fine quality. Petioles tall, plants healthy. Only fairly 
productive. June 8: Medium as to season. Conically 
heart-shape tapeiing to a point. Perfect in shape. Flesh 
light-colored, fine flavor. Berries large, not firm. June 
16: Season past. 
Shuster’s Gem (P.)—First sent here in May 1886 by J. T. 
Lovett of Little Silver, N. J. June 7, of 1887 our report 
was as follows: “ Plants tall, vigorous. Often 30 berries 
to a stem. Often of irregular shape, often ‘hollow 
hearted,’ rather soft. Broadly ovate in shape. Tips 
sometimes whitish. Scarlet color. Productiveness and 
size of berry are its chief merits. Large average size.” 
Many reports of this berry which, during the season just 
past, has been perhaps our most productive variety have 
since appeared in these columns, all going to show that 
it is unwise to judge of any new variety from a brief trial. 
J one 4: Leaves large, loDg petioles; vigorous and healthy. 
Peduncles branching often bearing 20 berries. Snckers 
freely. Berries usually heart-shape, large and tolerably 
regular. Begins to ripen this date. Very prolific. June 
8: Very productive. Berries heart-shape often with a deep 
central suture as if two berries were joined together. Tips 
often flaring. Quality medium only. Firm for so large 
a berry. Large to very large. June 12: Still ripening 
lots of berries. June 19: Still bearing freely. Weather 
wet, but berries firm. June 23 : Still bearing freely. 
Berries quite firm though there has been a succession of 
rainy days. June 27: Still bearing a few. 
All things considered, we must regard the Shuster as a 
remarkable berry—as good as Bubach in all respects and 
better in some as, e. g , color, shape, productiveness, long- 
bearing period and retention of size during the entire 
season. 
Lovett’s Early (P.) from J. T. Lovett.—Plants of this 
variety were sent for trial a year or more ago, but we were 
requested to destroy the lot by the introducer as there was 
some doubt as to their purity. Plants (true) set out last 
spring were permitted to bear a few berries. They were 
crimson in color, conical in shape and of excellent quality. 
Smith’s No. 5 from Fred E. Smith, Hudson Centsr, N. 
H., April 23, 1889. (Bis.)—June 8: Vines healthy. Berries 
medium size, regular, slightly necked. Quality mealy and 
mild. S -ason rather late. Not very productive. June 16: 
Berries small but o f flue flavor. 
WOLVERTON (Bis ) from M. Crawford, Cuyahoga Falls, 
O. Originated by John Little, of Canada. Plants vigor¬ 
ous, productive, late. June 8: Berries 
heart-shape, regular, often with a central 
suture. Scarlet, white flesh. Quality fair. 
Jin 5 10: Ripening scantily. June 16: Pro¬ 
ductive. Berries uniform in size though 
not large. June 22: Still a few berries. 
June 27: Past. 
Loudon’s No. 15 (Bis.)-June 8: Vines 
s roug, medium height. Late. None fully 
r pe. Necked, heart-3baped, white flesh, 
somewhat mealy, good flavor. June 16: 
Fairly productive now. Medium size, good 
flavor. June 22: Not productive. 
Smith’s No. 4 (Bis.)—Plants medium 
height, healthy. Barries scarlet, medium 
to small in size, not very productive, flavor 
good—not worthy of introduction. 
Sharpless on Jessie (Bis) from Jerry 
Dutter Angola, Md., May 8, 1888. Plants 
fine. Late. June 18: Still many berries, 
both green and ripe. It is a little later 
than Sharpless, of a better shape, fully 
as large and of about the same quality. 
VIOLA (Bis) from S. K. Kramer, Ga¬ 
hanna, Franklin County, O., April 30, 1889. June 8: 
Plants vigorous, petioles rather long. Late, not produc¬ 
tive. None ripe. June 18: Ripening well. Quality good 
and berry firm; in size from medium to lar.ee. June 27: 
Still a few ripe berries of medium size. Our notes as to 
this strawberry are imperfect. 
Mineola (Bis.) from N. Hallock, Creedmoor, L. I. 
Berry roundish oblate with short neck, scarlet, large. 
Vines low growing, Quality fine. Medium to late, fairly 
productive. June 8: Not productive. June 18: Not pro¬ 
ductive—quality flue. Berrits of medium size. 
Standard (nearly P ) from J. B. Campbell, N. Reading, 
Mass. Late. Rather low vines. Berries irregular, not 
very productive. June 18: Not productive. June 22: 
A few berries of medium size, qui'e firm, mealy and mild 
in flavor. June 27: Quite a number of ripe berries still 
of fair size and a few green ones. 
Pres. Harrison (Bis.)—Scarlet in color, variable in 
shape. Mtdium as to Srason, nit very productive. June 
16 : Berries small and firm, fl ivor good, not productive. 
June 22 : A few berries of fair size and good quality. 
Farnsworth (Bis.) from C. A. Green, Rochester, N. Y., 
April, 1891. Fine quality as judged by spring-set plants. 
Conical, glossy crimson. June 10: Quality fine. 
LOUISE, from N. Hallock, Cierdmoor, L. I , and from 
W. Atlee Burpee, Philadelphia, Apiil 3 and May 20, 1888. 
(Bis ) Excellent quality, heart shape, inclined to conical. 
Light to medium led, firm. Vigorous plants. As grown 
here it is not sufficiently productive. Season from me iium 
to late. It is worthy of trial on account of its quality and 
the vigor of the plant. 
Belmont (Bis.)—Late. Plants healthy, but not very 
productive. 
Lady Rusk, from Wm. Stahl, Quincy, Ill., April 4, 1890. 
(P.) June 8: Season medium, heart shape, often as if two 
berries were joined together. Light-colored flesh, crimson 
skin, rather acid, productive. June 10: R pening freely, 
berries sour. June 12: Height of season, berries smallish 
to medium. Quality medium ; not remarkable. June 19 
Quality sweeter. A few still ripening. June 23: Season 
over. 
Racster, from John Racster, Davenport, Iowa, (Bis.) 
It appears that this should be called Bader Wood, (Moline, 
Ill.) the originator. Mr. Wood, as our trustworthy 
authority, Mr. Crawford, states, allowed a few plants to 
be tried by one Geo. Ashford, of Iowa. He propagated a 
CHICKEN YARDS ON A WESTERN NEW YORK FARM. Fig. 194. 
(See Pago 883.) 
