VOL. LII. No. 2266. 
NEW YORK, JULY 1, 1893. 
PRICE, THREE CENTS 
$ 1.00 PER YEAR. 
BREAD-WINNING BUTTER WORKERS. 
ONLY SIX COWS TO A TON OF BUTTER. 
Poor Men can Make Rich Cows. 
The sight of some five-pound Carter packages at the 
depot awaiting shipment aroused my curiosity. They 
were consigned to the Italian Mission, New York city, 
and each package was stamped thus : 
PURE JEBSEY BUTTER, 
I'KOM 
MAPLETON DAIRY HERD, 
A. Baker, Prop., West Dryden, N. Y. 
The poor children of the city are furnished pure 
butter, while the old soldiers are fed on “hog butter,” 
according to recent accounts. Putting my I abeock 
milk tester in the cutter [this interview took place 
last winter.— Eds ] I drove to Mr. B.’s place. He has a 
herd of butter cows, and is a firm believer in a one- 
purpose cow. A Jersey need not be a little rabbit- 
colored and shaped animal, with delicate limbs and 
lungs, thought Mr. B., when he commenced breeding 
these cows 18 years ago, and large animals of 
merit were selected for the foundation of his herd. 
He has now about 2f> head that any man might well 
be proud of. He 
did not allow 
the “color 
craze” to take 
precedence of 
“ butter quali¬ 
ty,” but always 
selected sires 
from animals 
noted for their 
butter records 
so as to get the 
benefit of in¬ 
herited quality. 
If this could be 
obtained with 
solid color, all 
the better. 
From the yield 
which is given 
herewith, and 
the fact that his 
animals re- 
ceived first 
prize for mature cow and herd prize the only time 
exhibited at the State fair, one gets the idea that it is 
possible to combine beauty and worth in one cow. 
His success is worthy of mention and study, because 
it is due to a persistent sticking to one idea, unaided 
by wealth. I doubt if the splendid results obtained 
would have been reached had there been plenty of 
money to be used at the beginning. The practical 
experience gained from the personal contact and con¬ 
flict with poverty, or rather limited means, is what 
makes this dairy pay, and the want of it makes the 
millionaire farmers “ hope to pay.” This fact should 
be a consolation, hope and incentive to every worthy 
poor man. 
Fine Calves but not Fat Cows. 
Standing by a stall of yearlings, which I mistook 
for two-year olds, Mr. B. said: 
“They never had a set-back in their lives. The 
future usefulness of the cow depends much on the 
first year’s treatment. If a young calf is overfed or 
given a dose of milk too cold, and a case of scours 
ensues, it will never fully recover. It may seem all 
right soon afterwards, but when it comes to maturity, 
it does not have power to stand heavy grain feeding. 
A great cow must have a digestive apparatus which 
has never been impaired. She should be fed so as to 
be fully developed, and give milk at two years of age 
without ever having been fat.” 
The herd of milking cows were in the pink of con¬ 
dition. 
“ Do you think it profitable to keep the cows fat ? ” 
I asked. 
“No ! I planted my corn closer together this year, 
so as to get more stalks and fewer ears.” 
“ Well! Well! Why did you not feed less ensilage, 
and add more hay ? ” 
“ I can not afford to put in costly hay, and it does 
not give the effect I want, either. My corn would go 
100 bushels of ears per acre last year, and my cows 
got too fat, and would not go dry.” 
“ What effect do you mean ? ” 
“ The development of udder, soft skin, and general 
(smoothness) condition. You see here, I did not get 
them with twice the hay and grain.” 
“What makes the difference? Chemists tell us 
nothing dries out but water, and you say they do not 
eat so much, so it is not palatability that is lacking.” 
“ If that is so, it must be the water or the lack of 
water in the hay which fails to promote thrift. Some 
call it succulence.” 
“You spoke of cows not going dry. As you are 
making butter every day in the year, what difference 
does it make whether they go dry or not ? ” 
“ Unless they have time to develop an udder before 
calving, they start with a small flow of milk, and no 
after-feeding can bring them up in amount to what 
they should be. If from any cause the flow of milk 
is considerably diminished, it is never fully recovered 
until the cow is fresh again.” 
“ Then it does not pay to let cows get into the habit 
of fleshing up and shrinking the mess.” 
“ No ! A cow that does that is a poor one to keep.” 
“ When a cow is dry, can you feed her so as to in¬ 
crease the normal size of the udder and flow of 
milk ?” 
“Yes; but it is a dangerous thing to do, unless 
you are an expert. Milk fever and garget are to be 
feared.” 
“ How about ensilage for this purpose ? ” 
“It is the best thing I have ever used, provided it 
does not have too much corn in it. It keeps the bow¬ 
els loose, and is a milk producer.” 
Two cows were shown which hqd been fed with 
this object in view, and the statement was made, 
“They are exceeding all their previous records.” 
Feeding Fat Into Milk. 
“ You can then, by using proper foods, feed ‘condi¬ 
tion ’ and ‘ quantity of milk ’ into an animal, how 
about ‘ fat into milk ? ’ ” 
“That is a disputed question, and a plain farmer 
may not be considered authority, but, I think, the 
amount of fat in milk can be increased. Of course, 
I cannot prove beyond a doubt this statement, because 
I have not all the appliances for accurate work.” 
It seems as if our experiment stations should be 
able to settle this question, but they do not seem to 
agree. At first it could not be done. Then, if a cow 
was poor and out of condition, the fat could be in¬ 
creased until she reached her normal limit, when no 
more could be done. I think it would trouble the 
professors to decide where the natural (normal) limit 
leaves off, and the artificial begins. 
“ What experiments have you tried to test this ?” 
“The first trial was made with 20 pounds of hay 
and eight pounds of grain—corn and oats equal parts 
by weight. On this feed it took 18 pounds of milk for 
one of butter. Then the ration was changed to two 
pounds of hay; 40 pounds of ensilage ; eight pounds 
of grain, which was two parts of oats, two of bran 
and one of oil meal. This increased the quality and 
quantity of the milk, so that 14 pounds of milk were 
required for one of butter. The third ration was 
then adopted : Two pounds of hay ; 40 pounds of 
ensilage ; seven pounds of grain, which was two parts 
of oats to two of bran and two of cotton seed meal. 
The amount of 
milk remained 
the same, but 
only 12 pounds 
of it were re¬ 
quired for one 
of butter. When 
at the fair, one 
cow tested 4.5 
per cent. She 
was fed hay 
and four quarts 
of corn and 
oats. When 
fed the second 
ration she test¬ 
ed 5.5 per cent.” 
The grain 
is proportioned 
by weight in 
the above ra¬ 
tions, and No. 3 
is the one now 
used with the 
exception that the cotton seed is reduced to one part. 
“But perhaps some may object to these tests, claim¬ 
ing that cows test r cher as they advance in milk ? ” 
I remarked. 
“I can give you the date of the last calving, and 
you can find the average,” was the reply. 
The result showed that those that had given milk 
six months or more averaged only four-tenths of one 
per cent more than the fresh cows. I made a test of 
the whole dairy, and found the highest 8.2 per cent, 
the lowest 5.4 per cent. The whole herd averaged 
6.57 per cent, an average rarely reached, and, in a 
large experience, but twice exceeded. 
June or January Butter. 
This dairy, ci nsisting of fourteen cows, four of 
which are with their first calf, averaged 331 5-7 pounds 
of butter per cow. 
“ What were your receipts for butter ? ” 
“ The total net receipts were $1,161 for butter, not 
including value of skim-milk and calves.” 
“ And the cost, please ? ” 
“ Estimating the cost of pasture during summer at 
50 cents per week for six months or $13 ; the six 
months in the stable cost $21.2!) each—a total of $34 2!) 
per cow. This leaves a balance of $680 04, a profit of 
$48.61 per cow for the butter.” 
“ The statement is made that one can make a quart 
