484 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER. 
<T 1; e J^nrtteiiuw. 
BREED AGAINST BREED! 
Beef-Making; Fxperiraents 
AT THE 
Michigan /grieiillural College. 
SOME SURPRISING F^CTS DE¬ 
VELOPED. 
THE RURAL’S ENTERPRISE 
ILLUSTRATED. 
OST of our readers are aware 
that during the past three 
years a novt 1 experinr ent has 
been in progress at the Mich¬ 
igan Agricultural College. 
Various ideas are held at the 
different agricultural col¬ 
leges as to the character of 
the live stock that should be 
kept in order to give the most useful instruc¬ 
tion to the students. At some of the colleges, 
for example, the aim is to develop a good 
herd of the breed of cattle that seems, by gen¬ 
eral consent, best adapted to the general agri¬ 
culture of the State in which the college is 
located. Others maintain specimens of each 
of the beef breeds, while still others are to be 
found handling only the dairy breeds. The 
policy of the Michigan College has been to 
keep in the herd choice specimens of every 
distinct breed of cattle so that students may 
study the characters of each. For a number 
of years, Prof. Johnson, of the Michigan Col¬ 
lege, has desired to conduct beef-making tes's 
similar to the dairy tests which are quite 
common. His plan was to select young 
calves that should be average specimens of 
the different breeds, and as neatly alike in 
age and general condition as possible. 
These calves were to be fed, side by side,to the 
age of three years or thereabout®, using the 
same kinds of food for each, though of course, 
different quantities would be fed to the dif¬ 
ferent animals. An exact record of the 
amount and value of the food consumed by 
each animal snould be Kept, and accurate 
weigh’ngs of the animals should be made from 
time to time so that a correct estimate of the 
gain for each period of feeding might be 
made. 
It will be readily seen that such a test would 
provide a basis for some very valuable reck¬ 
oning in live-stock economy. The advocates 
of the various beef breeds are loud in main¬ 
taining that their pet animals will make the 
cheapest piound of beef. The advocates of 
some of the dairy breeds are equally loud in 
maintaining that their Dull calves can De 
profitably fed for beef. Most of the tests that 
provide figures for these claims have been 
made under exceptionally favorable circum¬ 
stances where the question of profit did not 
enter. Consequently a test, conducted on a 
basis somewhat like that to be followed by a 
farmer, would be doubly valuable. 
Three years ago Professor Johnson was able 
to begin the desired test. After considerable 
delay he succeeded in securing bull calves of 
Short-horn, Hereford, Devon, Jersey, Gallo¬ 
way and Holstein breeds, that were consid¬ 
ered average specimens. With these calves 
the trial was conducted. They were kept in 
a thriving condition, and were never forced 
as show cattle usually are. The steers were 
exhibited at a number of fairs and were 
slaughtered at the Chicago Fat Stock show 
last November. Great pains were taken to 
obtain trustworthy opinions as to the relative 
merits of the animals. A committee com¬ 
posed of some of the most experienced feeders 
in America, and another committee composed 
of Chicago butchers carefully examined the 
steers and the quality of meat was judged by 
the cook and the guests at the Sherman 
House, Chicago. In fact, it may be justly 
said that this is one of the most important tests 
of cattle that has ever been made. It is not 
fully complete; it does not fully decide the 
queston. and determine which is the 
profitable beef-making breed; but it does 
open the discussion in a solid busi¬ 
ness-like way, devoid of guess-work and 
estimated figures. We hope the test will be 
repeated and elaborated. We are sorry that 
the Ayrshire cattle were not represented, and 
that a lot of scrubs or Datives were not fed 
with these thoroughbreds that the value of 
good blood might be more forcibly illustrated. 
On another page the Rural gives accurate 
pictures of the six steers selected for the test. 
The cuts are made directly from the photo¬ 
graphs and are absolutely true to life. The 
Rural pays more for these cuts than many 
of its contemporaries pay for all the cuts they 
use in a year. We also give exact pictures of 
the choice cuts of meat from the different 
animals. 
It is not proposed to give, in these page®, 
anything more than a general outline of the 
experiment. Those who wish to obtain Prof. 
Johnson's full statement should send to the 
Michigan College for bulletins 24, 30 and 44. 
THE ANIMALS. 
Short-horn, Homer. —A picture of this 
steer with figures regarding his weight, etc., 
is given at Fig. 69. At Fig. 75 are shown two 
sections of his carcass. This steer was dropped 
November 25, 1885. He ran with his dam—-a 
good milker— until July, 1886, though in the 
meantime he had been taught to eat meal and 
hay. He was castrated December 28, 1885. 
He came from excellent stock. It may be 
said here ihat the grain fed to all the steers 
was composed of two rations: one made up of 
wheat bran, oats whole or ground and old- 
process oil-meal ; the other of a mixture of 
two-thirds corn and one-third oats ground to¬ 
gether, in the place of Ihe oats. They were 
also fed clover and Timothy hay and corn 
silage. 
Hereford, Hendricks, (see Figures 65 
and 71), was dropped October 27, 1885. He 
ran with his dam, taking all her milk, and at 
eight weeks began to eat meal—a mixture of 
oats and barley. He was castrated when four 
months old. 
Devon, Latitude (see Figs. 64 and 70) was 
dropped March 23, 1886 and castrated July 6, 
same year. He was taken from his dam three 
days after birth and fed new milk for 10 days. 
After he was two weeks old he was fed four 
quarts of creamery skim-milk twice per day 
aud taught to eat meal and bay. 
Jersey, Roscoe (see Figs. 67 and 73) was 
dropped August 27, 1885 and castrated.Octo¬ 
ber 13. He was fed milk for 122 days, con¬ 
suming 1,259 pounds up to February 23, 1886. 
He had in addition to the milk, 165)4 poundsof 
hay and 165)4 pounds of grain. He weighed 
306 pounds. 
Holstein, Nicholas (see Figs. 68 and 74) 
was dropped February 26, 1886 and was cas¬ 
trated April 22. He was reared on the pail 
and fu>ly weaned from milk July 10, when he 
was fed oat-meal and “ calf-mea 1 .” 
Galloway,King Jumbo (see Figs. 66 and 72) 
was dropped February 17, 1886, and was cast¬ 
rated March 30. He was taken from the cow but 
drank about all the milk she gave During 
the third month he ate, in addition to the 
milk, five pounds ot oil-meal and five pounds 
of wheat-bran. During the fourth month he 
ran at pasture and had skimmed milk and ate 
eight pounds of oil-meal and 50 pounds of 
bran. 
reports of judges. 
From a Feeder’s Standpoint.— The Short¬ 
horn steer, Homer, we ranK first in the lot so 
far as profit from the feeder's standpoint is 
concerned. He weighed 1,870 pounds at 
1,071 days old, a gain of 1.74 pound per day. 
Homer also ranks first in valu? for the market 
as well as the block. On most markets, he 
would outsell any of the others. 
The Hereford steer, Hendricks, a9 a butch¬ 
ers’ bullock is equal to the Short-hom, He 
has not made growth enough for age, weigh¬ 
ing 1 450 pounds at 1,100 days, a daily gain of 
1.32 pound, to make a profitable beast for 
the breeder. On account of the lack of 
weight he would not bring quite so much as 
the Short-horn in the market. 
The Devon steer. Latitude, we should place 
third as a butcher’s bullock and a seller in the 
market. While he is a well fleshed and even 
steer, he has not made growth enough to be 
profitable to the feeder, weighing 1,270 
pounds at 953 days, a gain per day of 1.33 
pound. 
The Galloway steer, King Jumbo, on ac¬ 
count of his rapid growth, weighing 1,620 
pounds at 987 days,a dailygain of 1.64 pound, 
should be ranked second as a profitable beast 
for the breeder. While he lacks somewhat 
the finish and quality of the Devon, on ac¬ 
count of his greater weight he would rank 
with him in market value. As a butcher’s 
bullock we should rank him fourth, his 
finish not being quite equal to the Devon. 
The Holstein steer, Nicholas, has also made 
rapid growth, weighing 1,660 pounds, at 976 
days old, a Rrowth of 1.70 pound per 
day, which would class him with Galloway, 
from the standpoint of giving good returns to 
the feeder. He, however, lacks the quality 
which makes the best type of a butcher’s bul¬ 
lock. He is too coarse, in the opinion of the 
committee, to make a profitable bullock, for 
the reason that, when finished and placed on 
the present markets, he would have to sell at 
a reduced price, from $1.00 to $1.50 per hun¬ 
dred less than the Short-horn or Hereford. 
The Jersey steer, Roscoe, while an excel¬ 
lent specimen of the breed, should rank low¬ 
est as a feeder, weighing only 1,420 pounds at 
1,161 days old, a daily gain of 1.28 pound. In 
the present markets we think he would sell 
for the same price as the Holstein, while, as a 
butcher’s beast, on account of his finer bone 
and ripeness, he would be superior. 
From a Butcher’s Standpoint.— “The 
committee selected to report on the respec¬ 
tive merits of the carcas es of six steers, each 
of a different breed, exhibited by the Michi¬ 
gan Agricultural College, respectfully report: 
That as to quality and percentage of edible 
meat combined, making a profitable carcass 
for the butcher aud consumer as well, we 
place first, the Hereford; second, the Devon; 
third, the Galloway; fourth,the Jersey; fifth, 
the Short-horn; sixth, the Hmstein.” 
From a Cook’s Stand-point —Mr. Pearce 
of the Sherman house, says: “Taken as a 
► 
'5b 
X 
£ 
IS 
M 
a 
o 
© 
x 
•M 
73 
O 
'& 
a 
o 
o 
© 
> 
at 
X 
9 
tf 
a 
o 
n 
. a 
to x 
a •? 
Q 
55 
& 
O 
&. 
X 
w 
fc 
H 
co 
O 
o 
Sc® ©-a 
E- ° 2 
> C £ x 
^ 
(fl 
O r-1 
CO CO 
o o 
CD 
© 
© 
© 
© 
u- 
© 
OI 
CO iO 
O iO 
© © 
CO 
s 
iO 
© 
73 
fl 
o 
o 
a> 
ai 
8 
07 
t'- 
© 
07 © © 
I- 4- © 
© © © 
JQ Z2 
■b g 
_ >> 
fl a 
'S'a 
CD l 
& 
IQ 
Ci y-i 
© o 
07 
© 
07 O 
07 Ot r-i 
© © © 
43 
(fl 
CO 
0 
£ 6* <» 
H >oo 
o 
fc 
& 
9 
P*H 
o 
u 
Ph 
>> 
XI . 
■+-> 
fl a 
<D Q> 
M’S 
03 © 
© a. 
5 x 
2.8 
(fl 
*5 a 
fl «W 
3 0? 
£ G 
co 
CO 
© 
07 
© 
5 
oi 
o 
CO 
CO 
iO 
© 
CO 
07 
iO 
© 
WO 
© 
/ 
wo 
© 
07 
© 
u- 
© 
ot 
© 
07 
07 
8 
fc- 
CO © © 
CO © 4- 
CO © 00 
l- 
© 
© 
WO 
© 
1—t 
CO 
CO 
u- 
u- 
© 
CO 
© 
to 
Q) 
3 
03 
O 
0) 
L 
P 
3 
© CO 
WO © 
T-H CO © 07 
a e s? a 
© © CO 
CO CO GO 
© th CO © 
l- 1-4 © i- 
wo t— © l— 
§ O 
a 2 
0) s 
x u 
■*’ 3 
3 .S 
£ - 
o 
a> 
x 
: a 
l 73 
o £ 
O <D 
> ^ 
>> 
as 
f£ 
O 
>> 
<u 
(fl 
• u 
a ® 
•fl X 
2 
03 U 
— o 
<D 0* 
q a 
Us 
O 
3 
►“3 
HH -a 
a to 
very good. 
My head 
cook, who is an unusually intelligent and ex¬ 
perienced handler of meats, says (and I have 
bought beef at every one of the Fat Stock 
Shows held here) that it was the best> flavored 
and most profitable, from having the least 
waste meat, of any that I have ever bought 
at these shows. 
“ I found the Jersey gave me a larger pro¬ 
portion of edible meat than any of the other 
carcasses, in fact there was no waste to it. 
No person tasted the meat without speaking of 
it. I was astonished at the amount of favor¬ 
able comment it excited in regard to its ten¬ 
derness and fine flavor. The poorest parts 
were better than ordinary choice cuts. The 
tats were good and profitable for use in cook¬ 
ing. Our pastry cook called it equal to 
butter. 
“ Next in order came the Galloway in 
quality and flavor and amount of edible meat; 
then the Hereford, the Holstein and the Devon 
in the order named; the Devon, in amount 
and flavor of the edible meat and quality of 
the fats, being equal to either of the other 
bullocks, except the Jersey, but lacking that 
tenderness found in the others. The Short¬ 
horn was fine in flavor and as tender as any one 
could desire, but would be very unprofitable 
to the consumer. There was a very large 
waste in fats; much of what we call the corn¬ 
ing pieces were so spongy and fat that we 
%5uld not corn them or otherwise use them ex¬ 
cept to render them for fat which we could 
not use in cooking, aud that is a product of 
little value to the consumer.” 
NOTES. 
As a result of this trial, Prof. Johnson con¬ 
cludes that there is but little difference in the 
cost per pound of raising steers of the dif- 
MAR 23 
ferenfc breeds under the same conditions. The 
superiority of the beef breeds rather lies in 
their early maturing qualities, which enable 
the feeder to turn them off, well ripened, at 
two instead of three years. Calves brought 
up on the pail, when properly fed, will make 
as much growth and be as valuable for feed¬ 
ing as if they were allowed to r suckle their 
dams. 
The lesson is very emphatically taught that 
average native steers, weighing from 1,100 to 
1,300 pounds at three years, or often much 
less, cannot be raised and fed with profit. 
Well bred steers weighing from 500 to 800 
pounds more at the same age may be. The 
value of good blood for beef production can¬ 
not, then, be over-estimated. It, only can, 
with good care and skillful feeding, in these 
times aud with the present markets, bridge 
the margin between loss and profit for the 
grower and feeder. 
The quality of beef produced by a com¬ 
bined grain ration, in which wheat bran, oats 
and some oil-meal form the principal part, is 
preferable to that produced by a corn ration 
exclusively. He believes these animals would 
have had a much less percentage of meat 
valuable to butcher and consumer ii corn had 
entered largely into their grain ration. 
The cost per pound of production is greatly 
increased with each succeeding year. Cer¬ 
tainly under most favorable conditions steers 
of early-maturing breeds should reach the 
limit of profit at from 24 to 30 months at 
latest. This may be modified in ordinary 
feeding by the fact that the yearling steer 
will need more expensive food than older 
ones. The latter will consume more rough 
fodder profitably than the former. 
The largest per cent, of dressed to live 
weight does not always indicate the best qi al- 
ity of meat, or the most profitable carcass 
for the dealer or consumer. The commonly 
received opinion that the steer that shrinks 
least in killing, is the best for the butcher, 
must be more or less modified by other con¬ 
ditions. 
iimtuuiimaL 
WARRANTED SEEDS. 
Every season brings hundreds of com¬ 
plaints from parties who claim to have been 
unfairly used by seedsmen and nurserymen. 
Seeds and plants have been bought, often at 
high prices, that have beeu carefully plauted 
and cared for only to produce the most disap¬ 
pointing results, because they were untrue to 
name and either carelessly or intentionally 
mixed. With a view to arriving at some fair 
method of lessening these mistakes and giving 
some basis for satisfactory settlement, we sent 
the following question to a number of seeds¬ 
men, nurserymen and farmers. Many of the 
seedsmen, wished to be excused from answer¬ 
ing; the answers given,however,may serve to 
start the discussion at least. 
Wnat guarantee should the reputable seeds¬ 
man give that his seeds*or plants are sound 
and true to namef 
If a seedsman or nurseryman by accident 
sends high priced, seeds or plants untrue to 
name, thus entailing loss and disappoint¬ 
ment upon purchasers, should the seller be 
held responsible, and what would be a fair 
basis for settlement t 
FROM ROBERT BUIST, JR. 
I think that the purchasers of seeds or 
plants should be protected to a certain degree, 
that is, if the seeds or plants do not 
give satisfaction, tho purchaser should 
either have his money returned or the seeds or 
plants replaced. This is my manner of treat¬ 
ing customers. A reputable seed house rarely 
sends out anything which is untrue to name 
and character. 
FROM J. M. THORBURN & CO. 
We fail to see in what respect our business 
as seed merchants differs from that of auy 
other reputable merchant who buys and sells 
any other kind of merchaudi®o. The risk the 
farmer or gardener assumes is incidental to 
his business as such, aud his best guarantee is 
the reputation of tho seedsman from whom he 
purchases. 
FROM J. A. FOOTE. 
The question as to a warrauty of seeds and 
plants is an exceedingly difficult one, especi¬ 
ally as to seeds. Plants are mostly grown, or 
should be, by the seller, and he should know 
whether they are true to name aud in good 
condition when they leave his hands. But as 
to a warranty that they will grow under all 
the conditions that may befall them from the 
elements ami the iguorance and neglect of 
those who plant them, that would seem to be 
too much to ask. Much more is this true of 
seeds. No seedsman, not even the most exten- 
