THE RURAL NEW-YORKER. 
JULY 2S 
of tools and learn the business, there will be 
no trouble in growing and storing them for 
lew than five cents per bushel or less than $2 
per ton. The Doctor may be a disciple of 
ensilage, but he ought not to throw discour¬ 
agement on root growing. Ensilage may be 
all right for those who have everything all 
right and know exactly how to manipulate 
it, but I have no doubt that for the present 
the mangel crop is the safest and most reliable 
for common people, and don't let us do or say 
anything to prevent any one from provid ng 
succulent food. J. b. b. 
(L\)t IjfrDsmmt. 
NOTES BY A STOCKMAN. 
The Bureau of Animal Industry is, or may 
be made, exceedingly useful to the live-stock 
interests if it is judiciously managed. But as 
far as judicious work is concerned, thut, it is 
to be feared, can scarcely be expected, if the 
present, beginning is to be followed up. It is 
said that experiments are to be carried on for 
tbe purpose of ascertaining if the disease is 
really contagious! 
After all that is kuowu aud has been written 
and said about this disease, which, its name 
being “pleuro-pueuinonia-contagiosa,” might 
have been supposed to be well understood, and 
after all the fuss and fury of the past few 
mouths hero and abioad in regard to this dis¬ 
ease, which, it has been said, has threatened 
all our great cattle interests in the West, 
the Veterinary Burgeon of the Agricultural 
Department is going to make tests to deter¬ 
mine whether it is really contagious or 
not! At the same time the question will be 
determined whether or not all the men who 
have been making the furious fuss, and have 
got the bill and appropriation passed on the 
strength of the contagiousness of this disease, 
are fools, or worse. Truly it is a very re¬ 
markable thing, indeed! 
Why cannot the Bureau— if it has a man 
who really knows auything about it—examine 
and report upon each case as it occurs, or 
w hich is suidto occur, and in a monthly' bulle¬ 
tin publish the place and farm where the dis¬ 
ease is existing, aud then let tbe lawful 
authorities quarantine tbe place. This is the 
w ay it is dons in foreign countries. An Eng¬ 
lish paper thus reports a recent outbreak of 
this disease in Scotland, giving the name aud 
locality of the farm where it occurred. This 
would focalize the matter and set all doubts ut 
rest. But if no one knows tho contagious 
form of pleuro-pneumouiu from the harmless 
form of it. all the work and worry have been 
entirely gratuitous. 
What has happened- Has the bottom fallen 
out at last! Farmer’s Glory, the noted Jer¬ 
sey bull, which, with its progeny' actual aud 
prospective, was valued at umiiy thousands of 
dollars, sold at public, sale for #140, or less 
than the value of a Short horn steer in the 
beef market. Tbe condition of the Havemoyer 
herd, sold at the same time, was very poor. 
Tho reason is said to have been silage—possi¬ 
bly too much of a good thing, if silage is a 
good thing at all. Perhaps it is in its place; 
but when cows are fed wholly upon it, they 
must nat urally be expected to suffer, ns if they 
were fed wholly upon roots, or upon meal, or 
on any other single article of food. But other 
herds are doing as badly as the Mahvvah herd 
has done, and after all the bolstering aud the 
fraud and the doccitfulness of this show bus¬ 
iness, tbe Jerseys are coming down to their 
true vulue, which for some cows I have seen 
is about $20 or less, and for tbe best precisely 
what they will earn for their owners in calves, 
milk and butter. The fancy-stock business 
bus been overworked, that is all. Now the 
farm business begins. 
The same result has happened with the 
black Aberdeen-Angus cattle, the puffed aud 
exaggerated polled stock. Now that their 
true value is seen, and they have been weigh¬ 
ts! on the meat scales and fed in the field, 
their actuul worth to the grazier is found out, 
and the good old Short-horn stock rises in the 
scale as one after another of its competitors is 
•‘knocked out.” Last year the sale of polled 
cattle in Kansas City for three months, aver¬ 
aged #4455, $500, and $650. This year the av¬ 
erage has been $340, $365, and $370. No doubt 
they are still dear enough for all actual bus¬ 
iness purposes. 
I don't desire in any way to depreciate these 
classes of stock. I consider speculation in 
them injurious to all concerned—that is all. 
I have given my reasons previously, aud need 
not repeat them. It is a matter for congrat¬ 
ulation when the values of any desirable 
things reach a point where they can come into 
general use, There is an enormous—practi¬ 
cally almost infinite—scope for tbe profitable 
breeding of pure stock to supply the demand 
of tbe farmers. It seems as if it were better 
to sell ten head of young bulls for au average 
of $250 each, than one for $1,500, and throw 
away the other nine to keep up the price of 
the one, i am inclined to believe this prac¬ 
tice is immoral, as a misuse of one of the gifts 
of nature, of which mankind is a trustee for 
the general advantage, and any farmer can 
very well afford to pay $250 for a good pure¬ 
bred bull calf of any breed, whether for the 
dairy or for taef, aud get his money back 
again from the produce in three years. 
Some persons are hankering after a general- 
purpose breed of cattle, good for both the 
dairy and for the butcher. They may hanker 
in vain. There may be rare animals of tins 
kind, but the two purposes of beef and milk 
production call for entirely different styles 
and conditions of cows. Perhaps there could 
not be a better illustration of this fact than to 
compare the forms of a fat Hereford cow and 
a Jersey. Combined tools never work well, 
and so it will lx- with the combined beef aud 
dairy animal, which will be a poor, unsatis¬ 
factory milker aud unprofitable beefer. Do 
one thing at a time and do it well, is an excel 
lent maxim for a farmer or stock breeder. 
The profit and wealth of the cattle business 
may be realized in figuring up the value of the 
Texan drive of this year, estimated at from 
500,DUO to 750,000 head. At. the smaller esti 
mate and $40 per head, there are $20,000,000 
a* the income of Texan stock owners for one 
year from one branch of their business only. 
Farmers need very' much to realize this fact, 
which has more than usual force when tbe 
wheat crop now harvesting promises more 
than 500 million bushels, and 75 cents a bushel 
seem to be a possible price. Tbe most money 
made on farms henceforth will be made by the 
stock farmers. 
Oainj ijusharit)ni. 
TREATMENT OF COPIOUS MILKING 
COWS. 
Under this head, Mr Stewart has given an 
excellent article in the Rural, at page 432. 
I treated a thoroughbred Jersey four-year- 
old cow, which calved March 13th, in nearly 
the same way' as ho now recommends. She 
came into my possession last October, and at 
both calvings, when two aud three years old, 
with her former owner, she had milk fever. 
Her ration during the past Winter was all the 
salt meadow hay she chose to eat, t wo quarts 
of Indian meal, two quarts of wheat bran, 
and one pint of oil meal night and morning. 
Five weeks previous to calving, the Iudian 
meal was lessened gradually, and about three 
weeks liefore the event was to come off, it was 
stopped entirely, and the bran with only half 
a pint of oil meal was continued; but she was 
milked clean regularly as usual; duriug the 
last week before calving, her milk was reduc¬ 
ed to about u gill night uud morning, aud it 
came very thick and glutinous. 
The cow calved safely, and the milk imme¬ 
diately changed to a light normal fluid, and 
the calf was allowed to suck three times per 
day (or several days, and then weaned, to be 
fed the milk instead of sucking it from the 
cow. After this she was milked only twice a 
day. In a couple of weeks Indian meal was 
again added to the wheat bran, at first a pint 
or so, gradually increasing till at the end of 
five weeks it was given with tho bran at the 
rate of four quarts again per day. The oil 
meal was also gradually increased to one 
quart per day. The cow escaped milk fever 
and all other ailments, fed well, and throve 
finely. 
Mr. Stewart objects to cotton seed aud oil 
meal. 1 think the former is useful during 
pregnancy, although 1 am informed that it is 
fed in Great Britain with impunity'. But the 
climate there is much more moist than iu 
America, the grass is more lush in Summer, 
and abundant roots are fed during Winter. 
These probably neutralize auy ill effects 
which might otherwise come from feeding 
cotton seed meal. But as to oil meal, if pre¬ 
pared according to the old process method, 
aud kept free from adulteration, I caunot 
think that a half to a whole pint morning and 
night, according to the size and appetite of 
the cow, can ever be harmful; on the contrary, 
it would Ik? beneficial, especially when an in¬ 
different quality of hav, like that grown on 
salt or fresh-water meadows, or corn-stalks, or 
straw is the ration, instead of good upland 
hay or clover. Pure oil meal has a very 
soothing effect on the bowels, keeps them iu 
good condition, and assists the digestion, es¬ 
pecially of coarse fodder. Indeed, I think it 
highly valuable in a moderate quantity for all 
kinds of stock. I feed it regularly even to 
horses, for to its other n erits, it adds an im 
provement to their coats, giving them a soft¬ 
er and more glossy look. a. b. allen. 
A TILT IN SUPPORT OF HOLSTEINS. 
In the Rural of June 21, page 505, an ar¬ 
ticle signed ‘ , C M ” flatly contradicted the state¬ 
ment: “In Englaud, stock for the shambles 
almost monopolize the breeders’ attention,' 
which occurs in my contribution on ' ‘The Best 
Cattle for the Dairy and the Shambles.” I 
think English and American authorities, as 
well as the most prominent breeders in both 
countries, will justify the assertion made iu 
my article. In the same contribution I state 
that “the polled Galloways, Angus and Nor- 
folks fail in the dairy.” Mr. C. says the con¬ 
trary is tbe fact. If this is so, will he have 
the kindness to give his authorities, and dairy 
records of the three breeds mentioned? Fur¬ 
ther, Mr. C. remarks, in reference to the Kerry, 
Jersey and Guernsey, that I said they lacked 
size for the dairy. I said, “On the contrary, 
those dairy breed? which lack size, and conse¬ 
quently are not beef producers, must waive 
their claim in this competition.” 
It is evident Mr. C. did not comprehend the 
meaning of this sentence. Again, he says that 
although he lias not the butter records of Mary 
Ann of St. Lamberts before him, it is his im¬ 
pression that said Mary Ann has equaled the 
30 day butter record of tbe Holstein Mercedes. 
The fact is, Mercedes won tho championship 
of the world and the Breeders’ Gazette's Cup 
by making 90 pounds 6^ ounces of unsalted 
butter to Mary Ann’s 97 pounds 8^ounces for 
the same time (30 days). I have heard of no 
record of the same duration surpassing this of 
Mercedes. 
Mr. Hardin's tabic, which places the Hoi- 
steins at the head of other breeds as butter 
cows, Mr. C. considers partial, and says the 
result might have been different “if,” etc. 
Then he continues by saying, “perhaps the 
Holsteins are the best cattle for the dairy and 
shambles; but it is my opinion that if the Eng¬ 
lish,” etc. If the English had defeated the 
Americans, there would have been no United 
States. If a different set of cows hail been 
tested, Mr. Hardin’s table would have been 
different. If Mary Ann of 8t. Lam tarts had 
made, in 30 days, three pounds more of butter 
than she did, she would have won the Cham¬ 
pion Cup and I (eaten Mercedes. And if auy 
other breed of cattle combined tbe qualities 
of the best cattle for the dairy and the sham¬ 
bles more successfully than the Holsteins, they 
would be recognized as superior. 
Mr. C.’s criticisms remind mo of the old 
saying, “If the dog had not stopped, he would 
have caught the rabbit.” 
Oswego Co., N. Y. DUDLEY MILLER. 
Slurp ijitsbattfrnj. 
THE TRUTH ABOUT IT. 
[The object of urlioles un<ler tills beadinR Is not so 
much to deal with ••humbuRg" as with the many un- 
ei.nseious errors lhat creep Into the raethodB of 
dally country routine life. - Kns | 
THE OHIO WOOL GROWERS AND THE 
TARIFF. 
SEC. W. I. CHAMBERLAIN. 
The facts in regard to the reduction of the 
tariff on wool are so freshly in mind, and the 
farmers are still so sore over the matter, that 
I need only allude to them enough to show 
what action is likely to result in wool locali¬ 
ties this Fall. 
Whether there were traitors in the camp of 
the woo) meu—high officials, too, who assen¬ 
ted to the redaction in conference with the 
Tariff Commission—is neither here noi there 
at present. How much money was used by 
the manufacturers in the Commission and iu 
Congress I do not even care to ask; they cer¬ 
tainly have got back all they spent, i recall 
simply the facts that in the Winter of 1882-3 
Cong) ess materially reduced the tariff on wool, 
and did not materially reduce that on woolen 
goods, nay, even increased it on some grades. 
Farmers iu Ohio at once saw thut such a re¬ 
duction meant a reduction of at least five 
cents per pound on their next clip, and of still 
more on subsequent ones. Hence, they every¬ 
where organized, liefore the law was passed, 
to prevent its passage, aud nearly succeeded. 
Well, the law passed. Boon alter, I remem¬ 
ber, a Wool Buyers' Association held a special 
meeting in the rooms of the Ohio State Board 
of Agriculture, at Columbus. There were 
“tonguey” meu present, who kiudly assured 
the wool growers that they were scared be 
fore they were hurt; that there would result 
no reduction iu price, unless they, the wool 
growers, caused one by the infernal din and 
clatter they were making; just as if umbrellas 
were the cause of raiu, or lightning-rods of 
; lightning! 
I Well, two wool seasons have passed since 
» the tariff reduction. This month it occurred 
to me that it might be well to get some reliable 
figures on present prices, so the following 
questions were put on our monthly crop 
blanks and sent out to the 1,400 township cor¬ 
respondents of our Board, viz.: 
Wool, average price offered per pound, cts.? 
« « ’* •• “ in 1881.? 
Nearly 1,000 returns have been received, 
and tabulated and averaged, and it appears 
that the average price now is 27 cents against 
36 to 37 in 1881, before the tariff reduction. 
This is a loss of nine to ten cents, or over 25 
per cent. But there has been no correspond¬ 
ing reduction in the price of woolen clothing; 
indeed, there has been no appreciable reduc¬ 
tion at all, that I can discover. For the tariff 
on imported cloth* is not reduced materially; 
indeed, in some classes, as I have said before, 
it is even raised; and so tbe American manu¬ 
facturers have it al* in tbeir own bands, so 
that whatever they save in raw material is 
clear gain; and how much is that for Ohio 
alonef The annual clip of Ohio in 1882 was 
23,629,424 pounds; at nine cents per pound the 
loss would be $2,126,084.16; and the loss 
on value of sheep and lambs would swell the 
total at least to $4,<KX>,000. This represents 
the forced donation the Ohio farmers this year 
make to the Eastern manufacturers. They 
have “passed the hat” to some purpose in 
Ohio, and got enough already to pay back all 
they spent in working the reduction through 
tho Commission and through Congress. 
No one shall know from this article whether 
I favor tariff or free-trade. I only say that 
o long as our Government protects almost 
he entire range of manufactured articles, 
ehile wool is almost the only agricultural pro- 
luct that has auy real protection, common 
lecency forbids a removal of the tariff from 
his. For we export instead of importing most 
if tbe other agricultural products on which 
here is a duty, and hence farmers receive no 
icneflt from the tariff. 
This matter of tariff on wool is quite a seri¬ 
als matter in Ohio, for the south-eastern hilly 
Kirtion of the State is better adapted to fine 
vool growing than to almost any thing else, 
vtiile in most counties sheep are supplement¬ 
ary to agriculture; but wool cannot be grown 
it a profit for lef*s than about 40 cents per 
xrand, and it has averaged fully that (washed) 
since tho passage of the tariff of 1807, and so 
lere in Ohio, West Virginia uud other wool 
growing regions, tills matter enters into poli- 
;ica largely. Our Board of Agriculture is 
ion-political. and this article shall not show 
my own politics. Bu»this is true. The tariff 
reduction occurred when Congress had a Re¬ 
publican majority; and so it was entirely 
natural that the measure was charged upon 
the Republicans. The Fall campaign of 1883 
in Ohio was fought largely on the wool ques¬ 
tion, though the free whiskey question was 
up, too. On wool the Democrats “ took in 
the situation” at a glance. They knew the 
wool-growers were angry' at the reduction, 
aud so the Democratic State plutform iu 1883 
declared that the wool tariff reduction was 
“iniquitous legislation,” and “ought to be 
corrected,” and the platform of IK84 speaks of 
the just demands of the wool-growers. In 1883 
the Democratic Committee issued a special 
“wool circular.” It said: “The election of 
Hoadley on the other hand, means the triumph 
of the Democrats aud the success of tbeir ob¬ 
jects, of which tho unconditional- restoration 
of the duty on wool entire, is one of the most 
important;” and the circular exhorted the wool- 
growers as follows: “Trust the Democratic 
party in this matter; it has promised to [sic] 
and it unit give you relief," 1 Ohio was carried 
largely' on this aud similar promises in 1883; 
for on the strength of them great numbers of 
Republican wool-growers voted the Demo¬ 
cratic ticket, bopiug for the restoration of the 
wool tariff of 1867. Did they get it? Not at 
all. And, as if to add insult to injury, our 
Democratic Attorney-General,Lawrence, who 
was elected on tbe strength of these wool 
promises, now says in regard to present Demo¬ 
cratic prospects: “Ido not think the refusal 
of Congress to restore the wool tariff will 
affect the Democratic party in Ohio. No man 
of any sense ever expected, a Democratic Con¬ 
gress to increase the tariff!” Well, then, why 
did you promise it, except to pull wool over 
the eyes of Republican wool men? 
In view of this what are the flock-masters of 
Ohio likely to do this Fall? What are tbe 
chances under each party { Look at past facts. 
The Republicans established the tariff in 1867, 
and in every vote from then till now in Con¬ 
gress, a much larger proportion of the Repub¬ 
licans than of the Democrats have voted in 
the interests of the wool-growers. In the ses¬ 
sion of 1882-8, the former voted almost solid 
against reduction, and the latter almost solid 
for it, aud in the session of 1883-4 the Repub¬ 
licans voted almost solid for restoration, and 
the Democrats largely'against it. 
The Republican National Convention has 
surrendered unconditionally to the wool- 
» growers, and tbe Ohio wool-men will be likely 
