80 
FEB 0 
farm Ccottomi|. 
DISTRIBUTION OF FAT IN THE BODIES 
OF ANIMALS. VI. 
PROFESSOR F. H. STORER. 
There is one matter that needs to be care¬ 
fully kept in view when discussiug the means 
of producing marbled meat, and that is the 
tendency of a too highly albuminous diet to 
prevent fattening. Indeed, no better means 
of making a fat man lean have yet been in¬ 
vented than the process of the famous Mr. 
Banting of persisting in eating nothing but 
albuminous food. An excess of albuminous 
food, if long continued, increases the oxidizing 
or destructive functions of the juices and tis¬ 
sues of the body, so that far from fat being 
stored up within the animal, it is rapidly de¬ 
stroyed and eliminated. It is a recognized tenet 
of modem agriculture that rations must be 
well ‘‘balanced,” as the term is, so that they 
shall contain no undue excess either of albumi¬ 
noids or carbohydrates. This circumstance, 
as has been said already, adds very much to 
the difficulty of judging as to the comparative 
action of one or the other kind of food, in re- 
speet to the de]>o.sition of fat in one place 
rather than in another, but it is a fact that 
must be clearly recognized and allowed for. 
The mode of deposition of fat is influenced, 
moreover, by the “condition” in which the 
animal happens to be in at the beginning of 
the fattening process. It has been stated, for 
example, as a fact of common observation 
that when animals in poor condition are put 
upon a fattening diet, fat tends to accumulate 
around the intestines rather than between the 
muscular fillers, and it is not improbable that 
experiences such as this may accoimt, in good 
part, for the very general, though possibly er¬ 
roneous impression, that lleshdoes not become 
marbled until the animals have find become 
cushioned with fat. The importance attached 
by farmers to the “feel” of animals, and the 
claims made by experts that by “handling” 
cattle they are able to gain information both 
as to their aptitude for fattening and as to 
the kind of flesh they will probably afford, are 
very distinct expressions of the common be¬ 
lief as to the significance of condition. A 
writer in the RCral New-Yorker of June 
11, 1881, even goes so far as to to say, speaking 
of neat cattle, that a “a line, long mossy coat 
of hair indicates a good feeder, whose flesh 
will be fine-grained and marbled, while a fine 
but short, coat shows a tendency to the accu¬ 
mulation of too much intorual fat, instead of 
a uniform distribution of it through the sys¬ 
tem.” 
Closely connected with the question of con¬ 
dition are peculiarities due to breed. Practi¬ 
cal men are familiar with the fact that “all 
animals are not alike in their method of de¬ 
positing fat; for some put it upon the surface 
of the body, and others accumulate it among 
the viscera.” Sometimes, it is true, the differ¬ 
ences here spoken of seem to depend ou the 
individuality or idiosyncrasy of a particular 
animal, as lu a case wldeb has boon described 
to me of a yoke of broaeby oxen that were 
kept up in the barn for a loug while and fed 
upon nothing but rowen. One of the ani¬ 
mals became very fat and his flesh was su¬ 
perbly marbled, while there was nothing re¬ 
markable about his mate either as to the eon- 
dition of fatness or the quality of his flesh. 
Still it is generally admitted that-some breeds 
are much more apt to yield marbled meat than 
others; though, ns has boon suggested by Mr. 
Coburn, it sometimes happens that the breed 
of animals a farmer is partial to is claimed by 
him to surpass all other breeds in this particu¬ 
lar, as well as in most, other respects. 
I have found that even those practical men 
who insist moRt, strenuously that the kind of 
food eaten has nothing to do with marbling, 
which in their opinion depends primarily on 
“ripeness,” are equally ready to insist- that 
the influence of breed upon marbling is para¬ 
mount, particularly as regards sheep, some 
breeds of which easily or even habitually yield 
marbled flesh, while other breeds cannot he 
made to do so. They say, in other words, that 
the good breeds of sheep ripen quickly when 
put upon fattening foods, and that marbling 
is a natural concomitant of ripeness. It must 
be admitted that this view of the matter is by 
no means devoid of scientific support. It is 
a well-established truth that while the percent¬ 
age proportion of any given food digested by 
animals varies but little ns regards different 
individuals and different breeds, the power 
of different individuals and particularly of 
different breeds to utilize food varies euor 
mously; some breeds of animals can eat and 
digest- vastly more food in u given time than 
others, and can prtxluce in this time a cor¬ 
respondingly largo proportion of flesh, or fut, 
or milk. The mere comparison of the stomach 
and intestines of different breeds, would poiut 
directly to this conclusion, oven if there wore 
not a multitude of feeding experiments to il¬ 
lustrate it. Thus, Grouven, on comparing the 
stomachs and intestines of 18 neat cattle, found 
that the weights of these organs varied from 
4 to 8 per ceut. of the live weight of the ani¬ 
mals; that is to say, the digestive organs of 
some of his cattle were twice as large as 
those of others. In six comparisons of cattle, 
Henneberg & Stohmanu found differences 
amounting to from 4 to 7 per cent, of the live 
weight, and Lawes & Gilbert found differ¬ 
ences of 8 to (5 per cent, in the case of sheep, 
and 3 to fits in the case of swine. But the 
larger the digestive capacity so much the 
more rapid may be the depo ition of fat pro¬ 
vided the animals are fully fed and are suit¬ 
able for fattening. 
It is, however, in the milkman’s cow that 
the powerful appetite which has been de¬ 
scribed as “being active without being criti¬ 
cal” finds its most appropriate place. As Mr. 
Gisborne has said in England of the Short¬ 
horns, “The dairy sustaius them, but the cast 
cows soon acquire a rough coating of fat, and 
form a valuable supply of low-priced beef for 
the manufacturing and colliery districts.” On 
the other hand, it has been stated that in the 
opinion of English butchers, one characteristic 
of an animal which kills well is to have a lit¬ 
tle stomach. It would seem to be plain, at all 
events, that animals of restless disposition 
and those provided with large lungs would lie 
less readily fattened because of more rapid 
oxidation and waste within their bodies. In¬ 
deed, some writers do not hesitate to assert 
that experience has proved that animals pos¬ 
sessing Small lungs, small livers and small 
spleens have a greater disposition to fatten 
than coarse-bred, ill-proportioned auimals 
which carry a larger amount of offal in pro¬ 
portion to their size and growth. Baudemout 
has given some figures that illustrate this 
point. In observations on more than 100 
oxeu, he found that while the weight of the 
lungs of Sbort-horn-Angus oxen was seven 
pounds, on the average, the lungs of Nor¬ 
mandy oxen weighed 10 pounds, aud those of 
another French breed nearly 12 pounds, 
while the live weights of the three varieties of 
animals were 2,200,2,270 aud 1.600 pounds re¬ 
spectively. He concluded that, as a rule, 
those breeds of cattle which are distinguished 
for their faculty of fattening early and 
quickly, and of producing a large proportion 
of merchantable meat,have the smallest lungs. 
Roloff, also, on comparing South Downs and 
other sheep that fatten readily, with some 
native German breeds that have little dispo¬ 
sition to take on fat. found that the improved 
breeds have a very short breast bone and small 
depth of chest, and that the pectoral cavity is 
so shaped that the animals are incapable of 
deep, powerful breathing. 
It is probably to considerations such as 
these that we must look for an explanation 
of such apparently abnormal accumulations 
of fat. as are seen in the humps of East Indian 
cattle, and the broad-tailed shuep of Central 
Asia, aud the Cape of Good Hope, as well as of 
the less striking though highly important 
facts, that some breeds of domestic animals 
are disposed to take on fat- externally, others 
internally, aud others as an admixture, so to 
say, in the muscular fiber. While the fat- 
tailed sheep and the Zebu may be taken as 
examples of animals disposed to carry their 
fat externally, the common goat may be cited 
as an instance to the contrary. Goats have 
commonly so little disposition to lay on ex¬ 
ternal fat that the Germans have a saying, 
“He carries his fat- inwardly, like a goat.” 
The natural inference here would be that 
abundant lungs aud great activity of move- 
merit are inimical to the accumulation of 
outside fat. Moreover, it might be argued 
that if there is really so little tendency to¬ 
wards the accumulation of outside fat in the 
case of active animals, it would seem that 
when any (fat) animals are driven their out¬ 
side fat should first be wasted, i. e., absorbed 
into the circulation, to be destroyed, before 
the inside fat, which to all appearance is so 
much more easily deposited. 
There is said to have been au old so-called 
Dishloy breed of cattle iu England which was 
remarkable for an accumulation of fat spread 
over the rump. Aceordiug to Karkeek, Jer¬ 
sey cattle offer an example of accumulations 
of loose fat in the inside, which is a peculiar¬ 
ity, as he holds, more or loss common to all 
good milking breeds. When abundantly fed, 
they usually turn out well in the “ fifth quar¬ 
ter.” In his opinion, we may safely infer that 
the better the milking qualities of a breed, 
the more likely is that breed to be inclined to 
carry inside fat. Short-horns, for example, 
carry more inside fat in proportion to their 
size than the Improved Devons, and they are 
better milkers also. The common, coarse 
Devons had plenty of inside tallow, while iu 
the Improved Devous t he fat and the muscle 
are generally well mixed. In the long-horned 
cattle, ho says, the fat [mingles loss with the 
lean ,than was the case in any other of the 
English native breeds. He mentions some 
lean, coarse-Iooking French and Spanish cat¬ 
tle that were imported into Cornwall in 1842. 
which, when killed, showed an immense ac¬ 
cumulation of internal fat. Mr. Gisborne, in 
speaking of the market value of the meat of 
different breeds of cattle and sheep, says: “ In 
the article of quality, the new and very arti¬ 
ficial breeds stand decidedly below all their 
competitors. To them must be awarded the 
merit of producing a coarse article in great 
abundance and at a low price, snited to those 
whose appetites are keen aud not critical, and 
whose means are limited; whereas the old 
races will furnish an article of higher quality 
for those whose tastes incline, aud whose 
means permit, them to be more fastidious.” 
It would be easy, he says, both for sheep and 
cattle, to form a series based on quality of 
meat, and such series would be confirmed by 
the prices obtained by the English retail 
butchers. For sheep he writes mountaineers. 
South Downs, various nondescripts down to 
New Leicesters: for cattle. Highland Scotch, 
Devons. Herefords, indiscriminate crosses and 
mongrels, down to Improved Short-horns. 
Mr. Lawes loug ago wrote as follows: “The 
degree of development, or activity of lung, is 
certainly, other things being equal, coinci¬ 
dent with the habits of activity or rest, and 
with the character for hardiuess of the ani¬ 
mal. Those animals adapted or accustomed to 
more of exposure and exercise should doubt¬ 
less have a greater development of lung and 
of respiratory and circulatory activity; and 
with this would go less tendency to massive 
accumulation of fat on the carcass or motive 
part of the body. Activity or laree develop¬ 
ment of lung, a less fat carcass, a higher 
quality of mutton, a greater hardiness, and 
more of inside fat. should thus go together.” 
And in his experiments on fattening different 
breeds of sheep he found in general the largest 
proportion of lungs among the auimals of 
smallest increase. He found, withal, very con¬ 
siderable differences in the amounts of loose 
or offal, caul and gut fat according to the 
breed of the sheep examined by him. The 
long-wools (Leicesters and Cotswolds) gave the 
least, the Leicesters being noted indeed for 
their remarkable aptitude to develop flesh and 
carcass fat, while the Hampshire and Sussex 
Downs gave the most. This result, he says, is 
consistent with the known comparative less 
tendency of the hardier Downs to give very fat 
carcasses, aud also with the known superior 
quality of their mutton. 
Statements are sometimes made to the effect 
that in some breeds of swine,—the Essex, for 
example.—there is a tendency to produce, a 
softer fat than is usual with other breeds, but 
I have not yet seen any explanation of this hy¬ 
pothesis. 
In conclusion. I wish again to appeal to 
practical men that they may notice and 
publish any results which happen to fall in 
their way relatiug to the production of mar¬ 
bled meat; particularly in cases where the 
animals are not extraordinarily fat when 
slaughtered. It is desirable to determine for 
all kinds of animals the influence of different 
foods, at different ages, and at different peri¬ 
ods of fattening, i, e., at varying periods after 
the fattening has begun, as well as to particu¬ 
larize more clearly than has been done hither¬ 
to the influence of breed on marbling in the 
early and middle stages of fattening. 
-Riiscfllaimnis. 
THE EYE-OPENER. 
Perhaps not the least of an agricultural edi¬ 
tor's duties is the acquiringof a knowledge of 
agricultural news. To fill a paper with es¬ 
says is the easiest sort of editing. There is 
ueed of noting “what others say.” For ex¬ 
ample, a valued exchange in Chicago, one iu 
Connecticut aud one in this State, have re¬ 
cently commended “Mrs. Lizzie E. Cotton” to 
their readers, and this in face of the fact that 
several experienced beo-keepers, in justice to 
the cause they represent, have repeatedly felt 
called upon to expose her fraudulent dealings; 
that one of the largest aud fairest of bee 
journals kept her name standing for months 
together in a sort of “black list:” that no 
longer ago than last December Professor Co ok 
an honored authority in apiculture, gave in 
our own pages the plain truth to the extent 
of nearly half a column, aud that the Kansas 
Bee-keeper has just characterized her, and N. 
C, Mitchell, as “reckless and conscienceless 
frauds.” 
These are indeed hard things to print about 
a woman; but public duty requires it, much 
as we may regret the occasiou. Let the sub¬ 
ject of them— who must have learned by this 
time that "the way of the trausgressor is 
hard"—reform her methods altogether and 
she will have better success in the loug run, 
our best wishes all the while, aud that restful 
peace of mind bestowed only upon the pure in 
heart. Till this turning from evil takes 
place, obviously the agricultural press should 
not lend its influence to advance her schemes. 
We note another even more regretable in¬ 
stance illustrating the necessity of reading the 
exchanges: of seeking to know what that par¬ 
ticular devil is doing who goes up and down 
the rural districts seeking whom he may de¬ 
vour. In a recent issue a prominent farm 
paper of Maine seems to have been made a 
catspaw of, in half a column of its largest 
reading type, apparently for the benefit of 
what the Poultry Bulletin denounced last 
year as the Zanesville and New Concord, O., 
“nest of poultry sharpers,” calling themselves 
the “North American Poultry Association,” 
dealing in a “Common Sense Incubator,” and 
selling for *2 what the Rural lately described 
as “a small, paper-covered pamphlet of about 
30 pages, a rehash of things better said in 
other works,” and the leader of which seems 
to be one “«/. M. Ram.” 
His or their doings in connection with the 
above “book” and alleged hatching machine, 
and with “Vaccine for Chicken Cholera,” etc., 
have been exposed in our own columns; again 
and again, by “Fanny Field” in the Ohio 
Farmer and by the Prairie Farmer perhaps 
20 times; by the Western Rural, the Poultry 
World, the Poultry Yard, the Kansas Farmer, 
The Husbandman, the Springfield Republi¬ 
can, the Hartford Courant. the Connecticut 
Farmer, the Iowa Homestead, Farm and Fire¬ 
side, and perhaps 50 other papers in the past 
two years. And yet after all this showing up 
of the “poultry sharpers,” here is an editor ex¬ 
posing his trustful readers to imposition by 
publishing an ingenious letter well calculated 
to beguile. 
Is it not a disgrace to agricultural journal¬ 
ism that this “Ohio nest” should have been al¬ 
lowed to misuse the press to the extent they 
have ? But the experience will not be fruitless 
of good results' if editors are taught by it to 
look critically upon volunteer contributions 
from unknown persons or remote sources, 
which show “uncommon anxiety” in any new 
thing, so called, or discovery or enterprise, 
and giving carefully somebody's full name 
and address, as in the poultry case referred 
to, and evincing a willingness to supply “fur¬ 
ther information upon reeeiptof stamps.” In 
these “hard times,” when wrong-doers multi¬ 
ply in high places aud low, let those on the 
watch-towers of the press be true to their 
trust and not imitate the foolish ostrich which, 
with all its equipments for defence, has been 
accused of thrusting its head in the sand in 
presence of threatening danger. 
The Canadian Postmaster-General last Sat¬ 
urday promised Secretary Gresham that he 
would not allow the use of the Dominion mails 
to the Royal New Brunswick Cash Distribu¬ 
tion Swindle of St. Stephen, denounced here 
in the issue of January 5. We are still re¬ 
ceiving the yellow circulars of this cheat. A 
local St. Stephen paper the Courier, which is 
said to lie controlled by the swindlers, in a 
late issue soothed the consciences of its readers 
with the assurance that very little patronage 
came to the “enterprise” from Canada; most 
of the money came from this side of the line. 
It is credibly stated that the humbug never 
gave a prize, except in a few cases, by pre¬ 
arrangement, to confederates. 
Postmaster-General Gresham last week 
“ black-listed” as a fraud the Henry College 
Lottery exposed by us here in the Rural for 
December 22, It is reported that the “man¬ 
agers” will be prosecuted for swindling. 
John H. Flemming and Fred. L. Loring 
were convicted in the United States District 
Court iu Chicago, the other day, of carrying 
on an extensive grain swindle under the firm 
name of Flemming & Merriam. It may be re¬ 
membered that we denounced this swindle in 
au editorial article over a column in length 
about a year ago. The firm burst up soon 
afterwards, aud since then the members, who 
cleared about $1,000,000, have been fleeing 
from their exasperated dupes in this country 
and Canada. The two rascals tried at Chica¬ 
go for fraudulent use of the mails, were each 
sentenced to 12 mouths imprisonment iu the 
county jail and to pay a tine of $500. By 
liberal fees out of their ill-gotten wealth to 
shyster lawyers, they secured a writ of error 
and were released ou $10,000 bail. Other 
swindlers of the same stripe are still duping 
the public, but a trifle more cautiously'. 
In the Rural of December 1, last, we de¬ 
nounced swindling "private detective agen¬ 
cies,” taking for our text a specimen in this 
city aud another In Cincinnati. Last Monday* 
John Kohfahl, proprietor of the “agency” 
here, which was situated at 243 Broadway, was 
tried at the General Sessions for swindling, 
convicted aud sent to State Prisou for a year. 
Had he confined his operations to swindling 
country folks out of small sums by* letter, 
probably* he would have escaped the clutch 
of the criminal taw for some time, but he got 
iu the habit of requiring deposits of from $100 
to $500 “aa security” fronygullible applicants 
