426 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER. 
June 24 
to them in wagons. The melons are split open and 
with three or four rakes of the hand all the seeds and 
some of the pulp fall into the barrel. When this bar¬ 
rel is full the contents are left to ferment and all the 
pulp is eaten up and the seeds separate and sink to 
the bottom. To facilitate fermentation and separa¬ 
tion, the mass of pulp and seed should be freely stirred 
the first day. The fermentation and separation of 
the seeds are complete, in hot clear weather, in two 
or thiee days, while in cloudy weather it takes four 
to six. After fermentation the liquor is poured off, 
and the seeds placed in tubs where they are washed in 
several waters, being each time thoroughly stirred 
and the water poured off while the mass is still in cir¬ 
culation, for then any portion of the pulp or defective 
seeds float out, the sound seeds sinking to the bottom. 
After the seeds have been thoroughly washed and 
dried one day in the sun on a raised platform on which 
cloths are spread, then in the shade, spread on the 
floor and frequently turned over with a rake until 
entirely dry, when they are packed for shipment 
North. The yield runs from <35 to 225 pounds, and 
will average about 150 pounds per acre, on a large 
field. This gives a return of $18.75 per acre gross, 
which is quite small, but then they can be grown on 
land too poor for anything else, and the after crop of 
Crab grass hay is worth nearly as much as the seeds, 
or at the worst will pay for the cost of cultivation. 
The methods are primitive, and other modes of drying 
could be substituted which would expedite the drying 
and save much labor. The foregoing is the method 
of growers of melon seeds for seedsmen. 1 think it 
would be to the advantage of seedsmen to pay a higher 
price and require the hills to be 10 feet apart and well 
fertilized, for thereby T know they would secure seeds 
from much larger and better melons, and such seeds 
would produce larger melons for those who plant for 
fruit. This is shown by the fact that my own planted 
10 feet apart and well fertilized from selected seeds 
will average over 40 pounds each, many running over 
50 pounds. A. w. SMITH. 
Americus, Ga. 
ARRESTING THE ROBBER COWS. 
BABCOCK & SCALES, COW DETECTIVES, FIND THIEVES IN 
THE CORNELL HERD. 
A Noteworthy Milk Experiment. 
The facts contained in the following article are taken 
from a very valuable bulletin recently issued from the 
Cornell Experiment Station, written by Prof. H. H. 
Wing. We have often praised the bulletins from this 
station. They are practical and comprehensive— 
printed on good piper and generally well illustrated. 
Much has been said of late about the improvement 
of dairy cows and the actual cost of a quart of milk or 
a pound of butter. Much of this has been “ all talk” 
or guesswork with little back of it but perhaps the 
record of a single cow for a limited period. The Cor¬ 
nell station people started in to conduct an experiment 
with a backbone to it. There was a herd of 20 cows 
on the experiment farm—a business herd used to sup¬ 
ply milk to actual customers. Now, it was said, “Let 
us take this every-day herd and for one whole year 
weigh the food each cow consumes and the milk each 
gives and also sample and test that milk as we go 
along, keeping an actual record of the work. That 
will show just what each cow eats and what she does 
with the food. If there are any robbers in the herd 
eating their fill and not filling the pail, we shall find 
them by this method because each cow must stand or 
fall by her own mess.” 
The Herd and How it was Herded. 
There is nothing specially high-toned or blue- 
blooded about this herd—just good, sensible business 
cows. Some 18 years ago Prof. Roberts began to 
make a herd just as any ordinary farmer may do. He 
started with the ordinary stock of the neighborhood 
and bred them to thoroughbred bulls, and picked out 
for the next breeding the best heifer calves of each 
year’s crop. When he started, the cows averaged 
only about 3,000 pounds of milk per year. Now, the 
descendants of these old cows average over 7,000 
pounds per year. Now, remember that they didn’t 
pick out a lot of the best cows in the herd, and give 
them a special test. No ! No ! Every cow, good and 
bad, had a chance to show what she could do. 
The herd consisted of nine grade Holsteins, six 
grade J erseys, one pure-blood Jersey, two pure-bred 
Holsteins, and two common cows, seemingly Short¬ 
horn grades. 
The test began January 15,1892, and ended January 
14, 1893. The food for each cow was carefully weighed 
every day. The milk was weighed at each milking, 
and once each week a sample of equal parts of morn 
ing’s and night’s milk was taken from each cow, and 
tested by the Babcock tester. Thus they found not only 
the total weight of the milk, but the amount of butter 
fat in it a# well. The cows were weighed on the 15th 
of each month. By looking at the following table, 
you will see that the cows were mostly large ones. 
During winter they were fed hay, ensilage, roots, 
bran, cotton-seed meal and corn meal. In summer 
they had good pasture and grain with soiling crops of 
corn, and second-growth clover when the pastures 
were dry. Here are the daily winter rations fed : 
For the lamer cyws. For the smaller cows. 
15 pounds hay. 10 pounds hay. 
50-55 pounds ensilage. 40-li pounds ensilage. 
10 pounds roots. 10 pounds roots. 
8 pounds grain. 8 pounds grain. 
After figuring up the total quantities of food eaten 
by the cows, the following scale of prices was used in 
obtaining the cost of the feeding : 
Per ton. Per ton. 
Hay. 19.03 Cotton-seed meal... $25 00 
Ensilage. 1.75 Corn meal. 20.00 
Hoots.. .. 2 00 Cornstalks . 3.00 
Wheat bran. 18.00 Cut grass (soiling).. 1.75 
Pasture, 30 cents per week. 
The cost of a week’s pasture represents the average 
of 13 estimates of dairymen in different parts of the 
State. 
The Story in Black and White. 
After t l ie year’s careful work of weighing, measur¬ 
ing and figuring, the account with the cows stands as 
follows. We have grouped all the important data into 
one table. In regard to the breeding of the cows, H. 
means pure Holstein, % H., a grade with three- 
quarters of that blood. J. pure Jersey. % J., Jersey 
grade, with seven-eighths blood, and Grade a “scrub” 
with some Shorthorn blood. The ages of most of the 
cows are given, but some are left blank as the animals 
were bought and the age is not exactly known : 
There you have the complete record for the year. 
Of course there are more details for each month of 
the year, but this is enough to pick out the robbers if 
there are any: Babcock & Scales did the work. All 
the sneaks that formerly slid their mess into the can 
with the others are now forced to stand up and face 
their records. The value of the milk is figured at one 
cent a pound or about two cents a quart at the barn 
without any handling after milking. The butter fat 
is valued at 30 cents a pound, which is about 25 cents 
a pound for actual butter. Those who know anything 
about the Bibcock test know that it shows only the 
actual fat in the milk—how much of it can be made 
into butter will depend upon the skill of the butter 
maker and his success in taking the fat out of the milk 
by skimming and saving it by churning. Good butter 
contains 80 per cent of pure fat—the balance being 
water casein, etc. As a matter of fact, if all the fat 
in Sue’s milk could have been made into butter there 
would have been 549 pounds. But it would be impos¬ 
sible to obtain all that fat by ordinary skimming and 
churning, and so allowing for the average losses in 
saving fat and figuring the amount of fat needed to 
make a pound of butter, it was found that 30 cents for 
actual fat represents 25 cents for commercial butter 
and is a fair price for estimating these comparative 
values. 
Some Donated and Others Stole. 
That is just what the record shosvs. Nobody wants 
to breed thief cows though many farmers are un¬ 
knowingly in that business. If any cow is goo i enough 
to donate milk or butter for the benefit of her weak 
sisters she should at least have the benefit of publicity. 
That is just what Babcock & Scales have done with 
this herd. You will notice that this is largely a herd 
of young cows and that they are all quite large ani¬ 
mals. The average milk record is far above that of 
the average farm herd. The average yield is 7,240K 
pounds of milk and 285.62 pounds of fat. Ten cows 
are above the average in milk and 10 below, while 
nine were above the average butter yield and 11 below 
it. The other figure^ tell their own story. On the 
face of the statioi’s figures there are only two robber 
cows in the herd—Daisy and Gem Valentine. Daisy 
ate food worth $41.24 and gave only $28.30 worth of 
milk. The other ate $36.24 worth and gave $33.88 
worth of milk. There was some excuse for Daisy, as 
she did not have a good start, but Gem Valentine has 
proved herself a manure maker rather than a money 
maker. On the face of the first figures the other 18 
cows gave milk enough to more than pay for thei 
food, but that is not all. What did it cost to take care 
of them ? What is a man’s time worth ? We have 
made another little calculation about this. We esti¬ 
mate that it is worth five cents a day for every day 
that the cow is milked to give her proper care and at¬ 
tention. That is, it will cost that much to hire a man 
to do it right Certainly a man has a right to expect 
hired man’s wages for the time spent over his cow*. 
Add this labor bill to the cost of the food and see 
where the cows stand. We now find that six cows 
did not give milk enough to pay for food and care, 
while several more gave so little profit that it is hardly 
worth talking about. For example, take Jennie, a 
seven-eighth blood Jersey. She gave 5,785.75 pounds 
of milk, worth $57.86, but she ate $43 66 worth of food 
and had to be milked 311 days, at a cost of at least 
$15.55, or a total of $59.21. No money profit in that. 
Is not that fair? Why should not a dairyman charge 
his cows what it costs to wait on them ? He has to 
pay the people who wait on him. 
Anot'ner thing that appears at first sight is that with 
most of these cows butter-making st 25 cents a pound 
would seem to pay better than milk at a cent a pound. 
You will notice that figuring on the basis of the butter 
fat, 16 out of 20 ccws gave a greater value than when 
the milk alone was considered. Let us see about that. 
It costs something to make butter—a good five cents a 
pound or more; creameries charge four cents. Add 
five cents for each pound of butter fat to the cost of 
food and care of each cow, and you will greatly 
change the aspect of affairs, and only eight cows will 
show a greater net profit in butter over milk. The 
R. N.-Y. has claimed that a man has no business 
to keep a cow that will not pay a square profit above 
the cost of food and labor, and make him a clean 
present of the manure. This experiment proves that 
there are such cows. 
Cows that Stay by the Farmer. 
One such cow is Sue (see her picture at Fig. 150.) 
Look at her record. A “scrub” of no particular 
breeding, weighing 1,040 pounds. She milked 366 
days, and gave 10,754 pounds of milk, with 439.37 
pounds of butter fat. She ate $49.08 worth of 
food, and it cost, say, $18 30 to wait on her. That 
makes a total cost of $67.38 to get her milk, worth 
$107.54, or, say $89 33, to make her butter worth 
$131.81. There is profit clear and fair. This cow was 
of no special breeding, but she was one of two kept 
out of 20 ordinary ccws like her that were tried. She 
had the advantage over the others in the fact that she 
was farrow, and was milked every day, while the 
others went dry for eight weeks or less. Prof. Wing 
says the picture is a good one of her. She usually 
stands in a hunched up way, and gives no outward 
appearance of great merit. 
That is somewhat the case with Freddie, Fig. 153. 
Almost anyone would say that Puss, Fig. 152, was the 
better cow, and yet look at their records side by side : 
Pound-of Cost of Value of Value of 
Milk. Food. Milk. Butter. 
Freddie. 11,165 $52 06 $111.65 $125.39 
Puss. 10,417 47.87 104 17 90 87 
You can see that Freddie beat her in every way, 
while Puss had the advantage of milking eight extra 
days. On the face of the station’s figures the milk 
from Puss cost a little less par pound, because she ate 
less food, but put in the value of the labor, and there 
is no difference. 
Another cow, Beauty, Fig. 151, made a first-rate 
record as a butter cow. She gave $117.48 worth of 
butter, which cost for food $44.24, and for care and 
butter-makiDg $34.78, or $79 02 in all—leaving a tip¬ 
top profit, with no manure considered. That is the 
sort of cow to keep. When there are such cows to be 
had, why turn your barnyard into a boarding-house 
for such frauds as Gem Valentine ? 
Looking the Record in the Face. 
Let us suppose that this table represents the year’s 
work of your 20 cows. Do you mean to say that it 
would not be worth $200 in cash to know your thieves 
by sight ? It would be like bread and meat for you 
name ok Cow. 
Breeding. 
Age. 
Yr. Mo. 
! . 
Milk. 
Lbs. 
Butter fat. 
Los. 
| Days 
In 
Milk. 
Cost 
of 
Food. 
Value 
of 
Milk. 
Value of 
Butter 
Fat. 
Average 
( Weight 
! of cows. 
] Cost of 
j Food 
and 
Care. 
Beauty. 
H 
.1. 
8 028.50 
391.62 
304 
$44.24 
$80.29 
$117.48 
858 
$59.44 
Belva. 
% 
H. 
5 
4 
9,739.75 
309.19 
295 
47.65 
97.40 
92.75 
1,326 
62.40 
Bertha. 
% 
.1. 
3 
5 
4,743.25 
233.63 
273 
42.00 
47.43 
70.08 
946 
55.65 
Carrie. 
K 
H 
1 
9 
6,008.50 
219.34 
366 
49.07 
60.08 
*5.80 
972 
67.37 
Cora. 
H 
J. 
0.214.50 
326.68 
278 
38.74 
62.13 
97.90 
1,123 
52.64 
Dalsv. 
% 
J. 
1 
io 
2.829.75 
159.02 
287 
41.24 
28.30 
47.70 
815 
56 59 
Freddie. 
H 
H. 
6 
4 
11,105 00 
417.97 
309 
52.06 
111.65 
125.39 
1,474 
67.51 
Gazelle. 
% 
. 1 . 
4 
5.670.50 
285.10 
288 
39.96 
56.71 
85.53 
1,071 
44.36 
Gera Valentine. 
. 1 . 
3 
3,387.75 
197.33 
2o2 
36.24 
33.88 
59.19 
829 
48 76 
Gllsta. 
li. 
4 
8 
6.323.50 
224.71 
324 
46.51 
63.24 
66.41 
1,270 
62.71 
Glieta 2d. 
H. 
1 
9 
5,136.00 
11X1.79 
316 
43.80 
51.36 
48.23 
1.001 
59 tX) 
Jennie. 
K 
.1 
3 
5 
5,785.76 
294.30 
311 
43 . <;<» 
57.86 
88.29 
1,030 
59.21 
May. 
H 
II. 
10 
4 
6.458.50 
195.31 
257 
44.34 
54.59 
58.59 
1,283 
57.19 
Mollte. 
17)■ 
•16 H. 
2 
4 
7.757.25 
260.34 
298 
45.98 
77.57 
78.10 
1,007 
59.98 
Pearl. 
% 
11. 
3 
4 
9.003.25 
299.07 
2 *12 
47.44 
90.03 
89.72 
1.160 
62.04 
Pet. 
% 
H. 
6 
4 
9.776.50 
330.59 
285 
43.12 
97.77 
99.17 
1.305 
57.67 
PUSH. 
% 
11. 
7 
3 ; 
10.417.1X1 
302.93 
317 
47.87 
104.17 
90.87 
1.520 
63 72 
Hu by. 
‘H 
H. 
3 
4 
7,955.00 
282.35 
302 
48.63 1 
79.65 
84.70 
1.183 
r>3.73 
Shadow. 
Grade. 
8,655.50 
282.77 
352 
53.38 i 
86.56 
114.83 
1,239 
69.48 
Sue. 
Grade. 
10,754.00 
439.37 
366 
49.08 
107.54 
131.81 
1.040 
67.38 
144,809.75 
5,712.41 
.... 
$905.01 
7.240.50 | 
285.62 
.... | 
$45.25 
