Vol. LXVIII. No. 4000. 
NEW YORK, JUNE 26, 1909. 
WEEKLY, $1.00 PER YEAR. 
FRENCH-CANADIAN CATTLE. 
“First Cousin to the Jersey.” 
ORIGIN.—The early French settlers in Canada came 
principally from the provinces of Normandy and Brit¬ 
tany in France, which lie near the Channel Islands, 
the home of the Jerseys and Guernseys. The ‘cattle 
of the mainland and of the islands were of the same 
blood, and those which the colonists brought to 
Quebec, and from which the present French- 
Canadian cattle are (descended, were ‘those Very 
closely related to the Channel Island breeds. Even 
now the resemblance is so close that many a light- 
colored, purebred Canadian cow can 
almost pass as a dark Jersey. They 
have, in fact, been called the first 
cousins of these other breeds, but their 
residence for 250 years in the Province 
of Quebec, where in the past, espec¬ 
ially in pioneer days, they were scan¬ 
tily fed and poorly sheltered, has de¬ 
veloped a constitution of iron. 
DESCRIPTION.—For size they rank 
with the Jersey; cows averaging from 
700 to 900 pounds, and bulls corre¬ 
spondingly heavier. The color is black 
or dark brown, with sometimes a fawn- 
colored stripe down the back, and the 
muzzle may or may not be fawn, or 
orange-colored, like that of a Jersey. 
The general appearance is one of 
alertness and vigor. The head is in¬ 
telligent, showing an active disposition, 
which is at the same time remarkably 
docile. The udder is carried close' to 
the body, teats are of good size, and 
well placed. Ribs are well spiffing, 
barrel roomy and chest remarkably 
deep. Tuberculosis is claimed to be 
unknown in this breed, except when 
contracted by direct contact with ani¬ 
mals of other origin. The Canadians 
surpass all other breeds in their ability 
to thrive on rough pasture in Summer 
and coarse, plain fodder in Winter. 
Nevertheless they respond splendidly to 
better treatment. 
In 1886, the Quebec Legislature gave 
an official standing to the breed by es¬ 
tablishing a herd book. Animals of 
acknowledged pure blood and of su¬ 
perior dairy qualities were admitted to 
registration for 10 years, but since 
1896 none have been, or can be, entered, 
except the descendents of the founda¬ 
tion stock already recorded. The 
whole number of animals now on^rec- 
ord is about 8000. At the Pan-Ameri¬ 
can Exhibition, Buffalo, out of 10 com¬ 
peting breeds of cattle, the French- 
Canadians gave more profit in the 
form of churned butter for each dollar’s worth of 
food consumed than any other breed. Isn't this the 
kind of butter machine we need? Given a certain 
amount of raw material in the form of fodder and 
grains, the cow that can manufacture this into butter 
with the least waste conies pretty near to being the 
right sort to keep. In other words, a cow of great 
capacity is not necessarily a profitable animal. It all, 
depends upon her ability to transform food into milk 
with the least waste of material. The following fig¬ 
ures, which are the average for the best three French- 
Canadian cows in the Pan-American six-months’ test, 
will show what this breed is capable of doing: 
Amount of milk, 5,252.8 pounds; per cent of fat, 4.19; 
value of butter at 25 cents per pound, $63-.86; cost of 
food, $23.64; profit on butter, $40.22; weight of cow 
at entry, 858 pounds; gain in weight, 51 pounds; per¬ 
centage of profit to value of food, 177. c. s. m. 
THE CASE AGAINST THE HOUSE-FLY. 
A Danger and a Nuisance. 
The common house-fly, never very greatly appre¬ 
ciated, is on trial on a serious charge. From the 
time of the ancients, who supposed that the devil 
masqueraded in its form, it has borne a bad reputa¬ 
tion. In fact, the best that has been said about it 
seems to be quaint old Mouffet’s plea that: ‘‘They 
TYPICAL FRENCH-CANADIAN BULL. Fin. 263 . 
A FRENCH-CANADIAN COW. Fig. 264. 
shew and set forth the omnipotcncy of God; and 
execute his justice; they improve the diligence and 
providential wisdom of men”—all of which reminds 
one strongly of David Harum’s defense of dog- 
fleas. Now, within the last few years, the vague 
beliefs and theories of folklore have been replaced 
by the definite charge of scientific men that this 
ubiquitous pest is more than a mere annoyance or 
plague—that as a conveyor and disseminator of 
disease it is a direct menace to public health. What 
is the evidence upon which this charge is based? 
Before we take up this question it is well to 
determine what we mean by “the house-fly.” This 
may seem unnecessary, but studies have shown 
that there are not less than eight distinct varieties 
of flies that are to be found commonly in houses. 
These vary in size, color, and more important, in 
the consideration of possible relation to disease, in 
their life-histories and their habits. Little flies 
are not merely the young of larger kinds, they 
belong to a wholly different group, for, once 
hatched as a two-winged insect, flies do not change 
in size. The fly which bites so much harder in 
muggy weather is not the house-fly grown more 
bloodthirsty, but is a wholly different kind whose 
mouth-parts are fitted for piercing, rather than for 
merely sucking or lapping. But in spite of the fact 
that a number of kinds occur in houses, at least 
90 per cent of the specimens so found 
belong to a single species—a grayish- 
black one about one-fourth of an inch 
long. It is this one which is correctly 
called the “house-fly,” or, as the zool¬ 
ogist puts it, Musca domestica. Such 
an one is shown much enlarged in Fig. 
268, while the footless maggot from 
which it develops is shown in Fig. 266. 
In spite of the neat, trim appearance 
of the house-fly, it is one of the filthiest 
of our insects. It has its birthplace and 
lays its eggs almost exclusively in horse 
manure, but, as we shall see later, that 
which makes it especial}' dangerous to 
man is that it will also breed in, and 
feed on, human excrement, as well as 
other filth. These substances teem with 
bacteria and, under certain conditions, 
may contain the germ of some of the 
most dangerous diseases. If the fly 
confined itself to this kind of food, and 
to such places, it would be harmless, 
and might even be considered a useful 
scavenger. But, unfortunately, we 
know too well that from such a diet it 
may pass directly to feed upon and to 
carry germs to food that has been in¬ 
tended for our own use. When we con- 
-sider that bacteria are omnipresent, and 
that they are so minute that the point of 
a needle may carry enough to give a 
man a dose of the lockjaw, it doesn’t 
need a doctor nor yet a scientist to tell 
us that an insect the size of a fly may 
carry literally millions of these suspi¬ 
cious organisms. On examination, it 
would seem that its six legs and feet 
are ideal carriers of germs. As is shown 
by Fig. 267, a microphotograph of the 
tip of a fly’s leg, they end in two little 
pads, which are as good as paint¬ 
brushes for such a purpose. More than 
that, the hairs on these pads (Fig. 265), 
pour forth a viscid fluid which enables 
the insect to walk upon perpendicular 
surfaces and, incidentally insures its ef¬ 
ficiency in the nefarious business of in¬ 
oculating our Jood and drink with bacteria. 
To demonstrate this undesirable ability of the fly, 
bacteriologists have permitted a specimen to walk 
across a carefully closed plate of perfectly sterilized, 
clear, beef-broth jelly,—a favorite growing place 
for bacteria, once they have gained access to it. 
The result has been that the path of the fly, wher¬ 
ever it went, could be traced by the millions of 
bacteria which developed from tlnise it scattered. 
If, at the same time, another exactly similar plate 
was prepared but, in order to check up the experi¬ 
ment, no fly was admitted, it remained as clear and 
transparent as when it was first prepared. In 
other words, it had not been contaminated by any¬ 
thing carrying germs. By methods known to bac- 
