two years since, who, had had some of these 
Corning and Sotham cattle in Vermont. He 
told me that he had owned them years ago, 
that they ware the best dairy cows that he had 
ever owned, and that the young 6tock were 
always lit for the butcher. 
Such men as Randall, E. P. Prfentice, Roach, 
Johu Johnston, C. N. Bemeut, Van Rensse¬ 
laer, Geo. Vail, Dclavan, aud other promin¬ 
ent farmers, breeders and politicians were cu- 
gaged in the breeding of Short-horn cattle. 
With those might be named Ambrose Stevens, 
an importer of Bates stock: Allen, publisher 
of the Short-lxorn IIcrd-Book, and Page, the 
delineator of Short-horn lines. These were 
the men that Mr. Sotham met when he brought 
his Herefords to New York. 
In 1811 the New York State Agricultural So¬ 
ciety held its lii-st fair at Syracuse. In 1842 it 
held its second fair at Albany, and I hud that 
of the exhibitors who took premiums over 50 
had exhibited Short-horns, while only two 
had exhibited Herefords. Among the Short¬ 
horn exhibitors were the names I have given, 
except Allen, Stevens and Page. I name these 
faots to show the Influence that tiie Herefords 
were obliged to meet at their advent ioto New 
York State, and for another purpose, to wit: 
to show that the organization of the New fork 
State Fair was effected in the interest of the 
Short-horns, so far as the cattle department 
was concerned. And this has been true of tho 
different State organizations from that time to 
this. Discriminations are usually made iu fa¬ 
vor of the Short-horns aud against the Here¬ 
fords in the making up of classifications aud 
premium lists aud iu tho appointment of 
judges. 
I raise these questions here for these reasons: 
first, because I believe them to be true, and 
second, because there must be inauy men yet 
living that will be familiar with the history of 
the Hereford-Short-horn controversy of 1840 to 
1850. I refer to it also because there are many 
who believe that the general adoption of the 
Short-horn6 is an evidence of their merit as 
beef animals. As compared with Natives, they 
are good; but as compared with Herefords, 
they are uot good. As dairy stock, eon.pared 
with Natives, they may be good; but as com¬ 
pared with the Ayrshires, they are not good. 
And when the history of tho Hereford-Short- 
horn controversy in England shall be brought 
out, it will appear that the Short-horns have 
taken their position by other meaus than merit. 
I do not wish to be misunderstood on this 
point. 
A Bonner or Vanderbilt values a horse for 
the speed there is in him. If it is 3:15. they will 
pay thousands for him; If it is 2:50, they don’t 
want him at any price. It is not because the 
2:50 horse has no value ; for my service he is 
all I want. So, if the Hereford will produce meat 
at 15 to 25 per cent, less cost than the Short¬ 
horn. and that meat is worth from 5 to 10 per 
cent, more rnouey, then the Short-horn has not 
a value that the careful breeder aud feeder will 
recognize. I am in receipt of letters from 
feeders iu the Eastern States, who wish to feed 
for the purpose of keeping up their farms. 
Many of them would be satisfied if they could 
get the cost of the feed ; but they say they eau- 
not do it ou grade Short-horns, aud inquire as 
to the merits of the Herefords as feeders. To 
such I reply that there is a good profit in favor 
of the Herefords. And on this point I have a 
letter before me from a feeder in Missouri. He 
says that for several years he has been a feeder 
0 * about 100 steers a year, and that for two 
years past he has fed grade Herefords raised 
in Colorado, and that he will never feed any 
others, if he can get Herefords. Another man 
in this State, who feeds about the same uum¬ 
ber, says: ‘*1 had two grade Herefords iu a 
lot of 100, and they feed out so much better 
than auy of the others that I would like to 
know more about them;” aud he raises the 
question as to whether their exceptional thrift 
was accidental, or whether the breed have so 
much better feeding qualities. Another says : 
‘■My grade Herefords aud Short-horns have 
grazed together during the summer and fed 
together during the winter, tho Short-horn 
grades making 400 pounds gain aud the Here¬ 
ford grades making 600 pounds, the Shprt- 
horns selling for $4,40 per 100 pounds, the 
Hereford grades selling for $5-124." 
I fed a pair of three-year-old grade Here¬ 
fords from June 1st to December 1st, making 
a gain of 1,000 pounds, and a pair of two-year- 
olds during the same time, that made a gain of 
1,300 pounds. The cattle-breeders oil the 
plains in Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico 
are crossing Hereford bulls ou their herds, tho 
produce of which are coming forward to our 
markets, though the demaud for bulls Is such 
that many of the calves arc being kept for use. 
These white-faced steers will always oommand 
a better price than others that have been bred 
with them. T. L. Miller. 
Will Co., 111. 
-♦-»->- 
“WHAT COWS SHALL WE KEEP 
In the article in Rural of March 22, the 
writer takes great pains to exalt the Ayrshire 
an top disparage the Jersey, Dutch, and Short¬ 
horn breeds of cattle. I care not how ranch 
the Ayrshires are praised, but when a writer 
undertakes to exalt his own favorite breed, by 
pulling down others, our suspicious in regard 
to his fairness are at onee excited. 
The position taken in this article, that animals 
consume food in proportion to their weight, has 
for a long timebeou an exploded fallacy. There 
is no class or breed of animals, from man down¬ 
wards, that consume food inproportiou to their 
weight. Every man as he sits at Ms table, 
discovers the fallacy of tliis assumption. A 
nmn of two hundred pounds' weight will often 
eat, day by day, no more food than the man 
who sits at his side weighing fifty, seventy- 
five, or even one hundred pounds less. Among 
horses, food is uot consumed in propor¬ 
tion to their weight. Some horses will keep 
fat upon a given amount of food that would 
scarcely keep alive another horse of equal 
weight. Every observing farmer is eonversaut 
with this fact. The truth is the amount of 
food consumed by animals, depends as much, 
to say the least, upon their activity aud nerv¬ 
ous excitability as upon their weight. The 
difference in ability to digest aud assimilate 
food, also enters largely into the problem of 
food-coosumptiou. Home animals will digest 
and assimilate to their uses nearly* ail the con¬ 
stituents of their food, while others of the same 
class wiH assimilate a much smaller propor¬ 
tion even in the same conditions of life. 
I do not learn at what Agricultural college 
the fanciful “ Fred ” mentioned in the article 
was educated; but I know that one of the Pro¬ 
fessors at Cornell University, iu a recent ad¬ 
dress, utters the following language upon the 
question of consumption of food by animals 
of different weights: 
‘‘Somebody away back iu the dim past laid 
down the rule, that ‘animals consume food iu 
proportion to their live-weight,’ but seeing this 
would never do, he immediately added, 1 other 
things being equal.' This amendment effectu¬ 
ally auuuls the rule, for other thiugs never are 
equal. Can any one imagine that two twelve- 
huudred-pouud, well-built Short-bora cows will 
consume as much as three coarse-headed, 
Gothic-ribbed, eight-huudred-pound ones ? The 
chances are that two of the smaller ones would 
consume more than the two larger ones. The 
truth is, animals never consume food in pro¬ 
portion to their live-weight.” 
The figuring made by the fanciful “ Fred,” 
between Mr. Lewis's Short-horns, aud Mr.C-nv 
zier’saud Dr. Sturtevuut's Ayrshires, is all ba-ed 
ou the fallacy “ that animals consume food iu 
proportion »o their live-weight." Certainly, if 
he knows a* much of other farm business as be 
has learned about cows at college, he is a mar¬ 
vel, aud “an agricultural college is a good 
place,” indeed, “ for a young man to” keep 
away from. 
Auother character brought forward by the 
writer of this article is nearly as fanciful as 
“ Fred.” I refer to “ Mr. Martin.” He is rep¬ 
resented as saying: “ These Jerseys, or Aldcr- 
neys, as I call them, have ruined the stock of 
cattle heiKi.” This statement is put forth as the 
wise eou«l*si»a of a practical farmer, aud there 
are those >Vho will read it and imagine that it 
is a fair, unprejudiced opiuiou, indorsed by 
The Rural. Tke author of the article iu ques¬ 
tion undoubtedly knows that “ these Jerseys or 
Aldcmeys” among our most valuale breeds 
for the jmprMferfbcnt of the milch cows in our 
country, yet be has stooped to this childish 
attack that he may exalt his favorite breed 
above them. 
Then the Dutch cow comes iu for her portion 
of “blarney.” Neither “Mr. Martin,” nor 
even “grandfather,” ean believe the story of a 
yield of 16,274 pounds of milk in a single year. 
Mr. M- and “ grandfather” have probably 
been milking their favorite Ayrshire all their 
lives, and so the story is “ tough,” in the light 
of their experiences. S. Hoxie. 
Jefferson Co., N. Y. 
-- 
A PROTEST IN BEHALF OF HOLSTEINS. 
In the Rural of March 22, under the cap¬ 
tion, History of a Poor Farm, No. 6. a brief 
space was devoted to remarks ou the above 
breed of cattle, and as these deprecatory re¬ 
marks are so opposed to my own experience 
of that noble race. I must euter an emphatic 
protest against, the slur therein cast upon 
it. In my dairy I have had Holstein cows 
that have made 10 pounds of butter a week 
in wiuler, aud gave me from 45 to 60 pouuds 
of milk per day. I have some Jerseys aud 
Short-horns, and my llolsteius make a better 
use of their feed thau either, or iudeed than 
any cattle I ever owned. Moreover, they thrive 
well on eoarse feed. For three or four years 
I sold more or Jess ol their milk to the local 
milkman and lie assured me it was the best 
milk he bought, aud that which gave his cus¬ 
tomers the greatest satisfaction. I got the 
Jerseys and Durhams to try them, but I am 
pretty well satisfied l hey are not as profitable, 
all things considered, as the llolsteius; for 
these combine more good points tbau any 
breed I have tested. A Rural Reader. 
COMPARATIVE EXHAUSTION OF SOIL BY 
CHEESE AND BUTTER-MAKING. 
A. B. O ., Westfield, Chautauqua Co., N. 1'., 
asks lor analyses of butter and cheese, so 
that by noting the ingredients of each, it may 
be seen which tends most towards impoverish¬ 
ing the soil. In a recent meeting of the local 
Farmers’ Club one member staled it as a fact, 
that the sale of cheese from farms robbed the 
soil of plant-food, while the sale of butter had 
no such effect; aud accordingly urged his 
hearers to quit making cheese, but to make all 
the butter they could; and our correspondent 
asks whether this view of the matter is correct: 
and, if so, what should be applied to the soil to 
supply the plant-food removed in the manu¬ 
facture of cheese. 
ANSWERED BY PROFESSOR L. B. ARNOLD. 
Agricultural chemists are pretty well agreed 
that of the many substances taken from the 
soil in the growth of plants, but three are 
necessary to be returned to it to maintain its 
fertility. These are phosphoric acid, nitrogen, 
and potash. The most important of these is 
phosphoric acid, because of the large amount 
used in plants and the small quantity the soil 
contains. Nitrogen is just as essential in the 
organism of the plant, but then the earth ab¬ 
sorbs it from the air in which it very sparing¬ 
ly exists iu the form of ammonia and uitric acid, 
aud showers of rain and snow bring it down iu 
quite appreciable quantities. Potash enters 
largely into the ash of all plants, but the soil 
usually contains it in much greater abuud- 
auce than the other two substances. There is 
often so much that the drain made by vegeta¬ 
tion is uot felt for long periods, and hence it is 
sometimes omitted in fertilizers for particular 
localities. 
The different ways in which milk is disposed 
of affect the exhaustion of these substances 
unequally. The dairymau who sells his milk 
to consumers outside of the farm, makes flic 
heaviest draft upon them. While we know 
this general statement to be true, we cannot 
with precision say just what the drain is iu 
auy particular instance, because milk is sucli a 
variable product. Its analysis shows that it is 
different in different auimals, and iu the same 
animal at different times. It will be an ap¬ 
proximation to a general average to say that it 
contains 86.50 per cent, of water, 4.50 of sugar, 
4.25 of fat, 4 of albuminoids, and -75 of ash. 
The material which enters into tho composi¬ 
tion of the carbohydrates, sugar and fat, need 
not be considered, since plants cau derive them 
from the air. Tim ash and the albuminoids 
only need be regarded. 
From the figures in our census for 1875, wc 
estimate the annual yield of milk per cow in 
this State to be 5,128 pounds, but for tho sake 
of couveuiencc in estimating, we will put it iu 
round numbers at 5,000 pouuds. The ash of 
this weight of milk at .75 of 1 per cent., will 
amount to 87.5 pouuds of which .6 or 22.5 
pouuds, are phosphates. To restore the phos¬ 
phoric acid contained in these phosphates, will 
require one and a half times their weight of 
bone meal—33.75pounds— which at $85 per ton. 
will cost 59 cents, soluble acid would cost more; 
but the slowly soluble bone is sufficient. The 
5,000 pouuds of milk, reckoning albuminoids 
at 4 per cent., will contain 200 pounds of nitro¬ 
genous matter, of which 16} per *ent. is nitro¬ 
gen, eausiug an exhaustion of 32.5 pounds, 
worth 26 cents a pound, and is worth $8.45. 
But by reason of ammonia taken into the earth 
from the atmosphere and lrom showers, we 
need not return the whole of this nitrogen to 
the soil. Practically it is found that a fertilizer 
which contains one-third as much nitrogen as 
the weight of the phosphoric acid it contains, 
will keep up the productiveness of the soil, 
so far as nitrogen is concerned. Wc need 
therefore return ouly that much. One-third 
of the phosphoric acid in the phosphates 
in the milk is 8.75 pouuds, and thin weight of 
nitrogen at 26 cents will cost 97} cents The 
potash carried away in miilc is small and 
variable, aud hardly ueod be taken mto ac¬ 
count. It is liable to vary from 5 to 8 pounds 
in 5,000 pouuds of milk Its restoration would 
lie amply covered by 14 pouuus of German 
potasli salts at 3 ceuts a pound. 'Die whole 
expense of restoring the waste will be 59 cents 
plus 97 cents plus 42 cents, equal to $1.98 per 
cow yearly. 
If this quautity of milk had been carried to 
a cheese factory, aiid after being made into 
cheese its whey had been returned and con¬ 
sumed on the farm without loss of its fertiliz¬ 
ing power, tho exhaustion would have been 
much less. To determine what tho loss to the 
farm would be, we must subtract the value of 
the whey, as a fertilizer, from the value of 
milk for that purpose, which wc see is worth 
$1.98 for the milk of a cow one year. Dr. 
Voeleker makes the average of 15 analyses of 
whey, to coutaiu oue per cent, of albuminoids 
in the form of albumen and easeluc uotworked 
into cheese, and 65-100 of one per cent, of ash, 
which has the same composition as the ash of 
milk. The quantity of nitrogenous matter iu 
the whey as given by Voeleker, is believed to 
be larger than usual, and we reduce it to 9-10 
of one per cent. As tbc four per cent, of nitro¬ 
genous matter in the milk gave us 32.5 pounds 
of nitrogen, .9 will give 7.31 pounds. But this 
is too large, because there is not as much whey 
returned as there was milk taken away, by 
about 15 per cent. Reducing the nitrogen 15 
per cent., we have 0.2 pounds to return to the 
farm. But we have found by examining the 
per cent, of nitrogen in good fertilizers, that 
this is a larger proportion of what has been 
taken away than need be restored to keep up 
productiveness iu grass lands especially, so 
that we shall have no occasion to count auy 
loss in nitrogen on account of making the milk 
into cheese. 
The ash in the whey returned is .86 of what 
it was in the milk. The phosphates in the 
whey will be. .86 Of 22.5 pounds or 19.5. Re¬ 
ducing this 15 per cent, we have 15.575pounds 
as the phosphates returned to the farm in the 
whey. Subtracting this from the phosphates 
carried away in the milk, we have 0.925 pouuds, 
as the loss which can be restored with 20 ceuts, 
worth of bone meal at the wholesale price 
of $35 a ton. Following the same course 
with the potash, the loss will be covered by 
13 ceuts, making the whole loss, at current 
rates for fertilizers, amount to 33 ceuts per 
cow a year. If the milk of this cow had been 
devoted to butter making, and the skimmed 
milk all used on the farm, there would be 
nothing lost on account of the sale of the but¬ 
ter. There is a small loss of nitrogenous 
matter iu butter but it does uot average more 
than 1-2500 per cent of the milk, aud is too in- 
slguificaut to be reckoned. 
The foregoing will answer the question of A. 
B. C. in regard to the comparative losses to 
the resources of the soil, so far as milk, in its 
different uses, is concerned,^but it by no means 
covers all the causes of exhaustion upon dairy 
farms. Iu the practical operations of dairy 
management, much larger losses thau those 
growing out of the different uses of milk, are 
common. The food which the cow derives 
from the farm is a steady source of exhaus¬ 
tion, unless it goes back into the soil again. 
This seldom or never happens. The liquid man¬ 
ure from the herd nearly all goes to waste on 
most farms during oue-half of the year at least. 
The waste from this source is large aud tells 
heavily on the fertility of the farm. A cow is 
estimated to void more than double the quantity 
of urine that she does of milk, and it contains 
much valuable plant-food. The milk of a cow 
giving 5.000 pouuds a year, wc found to coutaiu 
32.5 pouuds of nitrogen. The uriue of such a 
cow, for only half theyear, would coutaiu three 
times that amount, half as much phosphoric 
acid, and more than five times as much potash 
as the whole year’s milk. 
The dairy man who declines makiug cheese of 
his milk because of the 33 ceuts 1 worth of ex¬ 
haustion to the soil, and carelessly allows the 
waste of half or more of the urine from his 
herd, is saving at the tap and spilling at the 
bung. The solid droppings often share loss 
with the liquid. Whether piled under the 
eaves or lying iu the open yard, water from 
the heavens usually carries away more or less, 
often oue-half, of ftie most soluble aud avail¬ 
able part of the solid excrement and, with the 
liquid, sinks it out of reach, or washes it Into 
some depression to make a mire-hole and a 
stench when hot weather comes ou. 
It requires the closest attention to every de¬ 
tail iu the care of all animals fed on the farm, 
to prevent a ranch greater waste of plant-food 
thau occurs in the xuost unfavorable use to 
which milk ean be put—selling it from the 
farm. The avenues of loss in the restoration 
of fertility canuot, iu auy case, be wholly 
stopped, for every young animal sold from 
the farm, whether calf, pig or poultry, carries 
away an indefinite amouutof phosphoric acid, 
potash and nitrogen in tire form of bones, 
blood aud licsU. 
It is a good thing to have attention called to 
the losses which may occur in the different 
uses of milk, aud how to restore them. We are 
glad to aid all we can in this direction, but we 
would not have the other prolific sources of 
exhaustion overlooked. 
CONSTRUCTION OF THE PLOW. 
riiOFESSOR 8. M. TRACY. 
ICarly Forms and Improvements. 
At a very early day our ancestors learned 
that in order to render the soil productive, 
they must, make it loose and friable to give 
free ingress to air aud moisture, and to give 
the tender rootlets room to develop themselves. 
For thousands of years the loosening of the 
soil was the ouly object that was sought to he 
accomplished by plowing. The only plow used 
was made on the principle of a pointed stick to 
scratch the surface of the ground, aud only 
within the last four hundred years did the plow 
