1008. 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER. 
3 60 
SHEEP PULLING THEIR WOOL. 
Is rock salt as suitable as good coarse 
salt for sheep? Some of my sheep -nip 
one another’s wool, and one of them is in¬ 
clined to pick herself, pulling out little 
bunches of wool. What do you think is 
the cause of it? I had been giving them 
coarse salt twice a week, but within the 
last three or four weeks I have been keep¬ 
ing rock salt before them. I examined 
the one that bit herself but did not find 
any ticks or other insects on her. I am 
feeding clover hay, all they will clean up, 
and two gallons of corn and bran twice a 
day to 24 sheep. The corn and bran is 
mixed in the proportion of one of corn to 
two of bran. H. sr. c. 
Silcott Springs, Va. 
Doubtless the “rock” salt is just as 
good for the sheep as the “coarse,” and 
relished much better. It is always bet¬ 
ter to keep salt before them at all 
times; then each sheep is sure to get 
what it needs. Their tastes and require¬ 
ments differ, as do those of the human 
family. Keep the salt in a box or trough 
so high that they cannot step in it, and 
with a shield on top to keep out dirt, 
or rain, if in the open. The feeds seem 
to be very good. Perhaps an excess of 
corn, if they have not yet dropped their 
lambs. It is hard to tell at this dis¬ 
tance from the facts given why they pull 
their wool. Usually it is because of 
parasites or a lack of protein or mineral 
in the food. In the latter case their 
system craves that which they are not 
getting and finding something in the 
wool which in a measure satisfies it, they 
develop the habit. I would suggest 
sprinkling the salt with turpentine, and 
adding to every quart of salt a teaspoon¬ 
ful of bone flour. The sheep will not 
eat it at first, but if kept before them 
their desire for salt will soon overcome 
their dislike. In any case I would shear 
them. This will stop the loss of wool, 
and overcome the habit. The sheep 
will be the better for it. If kept shel¬ 
tered they will suffer less than if allowed 
to suffer from the heat of the fleece, 
the coming warm days and then be de¬ 
prived of it, and have to lie on the cold 
ground, and perhaps in the rain. 
EDWARD VAN ALSTYNE. 
THE CHAMPION BUTTER COW. 
I find a very interesting article on page 
272. In speaking of Jersey cows .T. Grant 
Morse states that one Jersey cow has made, 
by official test, 40 pounds; 12% ounces; 
another 39 pounds, 12 ounces; another 36 
pounds, 12% ounces of butter in seven days, 
while a two-year-old heifer has made 80 
pounds, 15 ounces in seven days. Will Mr. 
Morse give the names of these cows, their 
age. owner and the date of the test, and 
under what official supervision? I have a 
herd of 00, some registered, Holstein cows, 
and I have been led to believe by periodicals, 
devoted to the interests of the Holstein 
breeders, that Colantha 4th’s Johanna holds 
the highest record for butter in seven days, 
and that in general the Holstein cow is the 
largest producer of butter fat known in his¬ 
tory. Naturally the test of the cow's pro¬ 
ducing quality is in butter fat and not in 
butter, because the Babcock test gives the 
absolute test of butter fat, and butter may 
vary greatly, depending upon the amount 
of moisture and the salt and other ingre¬ 
dients placed therein. If Mr. Morse is cor¬ 
rect in His statement that one cow has pro¬ 
duced 40 pounds, 12% ounces of butter in 
seven days, which is equivalent to something 
over 37 pounds of butter fat in seven days, 
I think that many breeders of cattle are 
very much in error. Indeed, I have seen it 
stated that there are two-year-old Holstein 
heifers that have made ag much butter in 
seven days as any mature cow of any other 
breed than the IIolstein-Frieslan. Mr. Morse 
states that a two-year-old Jersey heifer has 
made 30 pounds, 15 ounces in seven days— 
that is the equivalent of almost 25 pounds 
of butter fat. I am not prejudiced against 
the Jersey cow. I regard her as a valuable 
typo of dairy breeds. I am not prejudiced 
against the Jersey cow although there has 
been a great deal of controversy about the 
irregularity of registrations and transfers; 
but I apprehend that Mr. Morse will have 
a great- deal of difficulty in making the 
“papers fit” the reported official tests of 
40 pounds, 12% ounces for the mature cow, 
and 30 pounds. 15 ounces for the two-year- 
old heifer. Let us have the truth. 
New Jersey. john c. sharpe. 
I shall not take the trouble to question 
Mr. Sharpe’s statement that “Naturally 
the test of the cows producing quality is 
in butter fat, and not in butter, because 
the Babcock test gives absolute test of 
butter fat, while butter may vary great¬ 
ly.” We are satisfied that “Jersey but¬ 
ter” is the world over recognized as the 
very best butter made, and will let it go 
at that. But surely Mr. Sharpe would 
not be so unreasonable as to set up the 
claim that just because the best cow in 
the world happened to have been born 
before the Babcock test was put in use, 
and before the agricultural colleges con¬ 
ceived the idea of making “confirmed, 
official tests” that said cow should be 
forgotten, and that her name should be 
consigned to oblivion? So long as her 
descendants flourish on the earth and 
man eats butter I can assure him that 
she will not be forgotten. The Jersey 
cow to which I referred as making an 
official test of 46 pounds 12J4 ounces of 
butter in seven days was Princess 2d 
No. 8046. She was dropped February 
22, 1877. Sire Khedive P. S. 103 (a son 
of Coomassie) ; dam Princess F. S. 1294. 
The test was conducted by J. Henry 
Gesty, who was appointed by the Ameri¬ 
can Jersey Cattle Club, and was made in 
strict accordance with the rules of the 
club in making official tests. 
Following is the verbatim report of 
Mr. Gesty to the cattle club: 
Mr. John I. Holly, President American 
Jersey Cattle Club, New York. 
Dear Sir: Having been appointed by 
you to act. as committee of the American 
Jersey Cattle Club in witnessing the test 
of the Jersey cow Princess 2d 8040 owned 
by Mrs. S. M. Shoemaker, of Burnside 
Park, near Baltimore, Md., 1 respectfully 
submit the following report: The test 
began at 0.05 p. m. Sunday evening, Feb¬ 
ruary 22, 1885, when the cow was milked 
dry in my presence. The first milking in¬ 
cluded in the test was that at 3 a. m. Mon¬ 
day, February 23. after which the cow was 
milked at intervals of eight hours each day, 
until the last Sunday evening, March 1, 
when she was milked at 0.05 p. m., to cor¬ 
respond with time of preliminary milking. 
I was present at. each of the 21 milkings, 
and did not lose sight of the milk until 
after it had been placed in a nine-can Mose¬ 
ley cabinet creamer. The lid of this cream¬ 
er, the doors and ventilators were carefully 
secured each time by tape and seals firmly 
affixed to the wood and each stamped with 
my private seal. The cream on being re¬ 
moved from the creamer was placed in 
wooden buckets in a large wooden box 
made at my suggestion, and likewise sealed 
and stamped. These various seals re¬ 
mained intact, except when broken by me 
to admit the milk or draw off the cream. 
I was also present when the cream was 
placed in the churn, remained while it was 
being churned, and weighed the unsalted 
butter, the salt to be added (one ounce to 
the pound), and finally the salted butter. 
The butter was worked to my entire sat¬ 
isfaction, exceedingly dry, as will be seen 
by the fact that the salt when added made 
an almost clear gain. So that from the 
time of milking until the salted butter had 
been weighed, the milk, cream and butter 
were either within my sight or securely 
sealed. 
The scales on which the butter was 
weighed were bought of Fairbanks & Co., 
for this special purpose, after having been 
tested and guaranteed by them to be ac¬ 
curate by United States standard. In¬ 
closed is ft letter from Fairbanks & Co. to 
that effect. The cow was fed at the dis¬ 
cretion of Mr. O. Rieklefsen, manager of 
the herd, the daily ration lieing 22 quarts 
ground oats, 15 quarts pea meal, two quarts 
linseed oil cake, one quart wheat bran, total 
40 quarts, besides carrots, beets and clover 
hay. Her appetite was constantly good, in 
fact she seemed always ready to eat more. 
(Here follow remarks as to weather con¬ 
ditions and table giving time of milking, 
amount of milk at each milking.) The 
whole being 299% pounds of milk, butter 
unsalted 44 pounds 1% ounces, salted 40 
pounds 12% ounces. Her weight was 1,125 
pounds, carrying no surplus flesh Her last 
calf was dropped December 31, 1884, seven 
and a half weeks before the beginning of 
the test for which she was prepared by 
six weeks of high feeding. 
All of which is respectfully submitted. 
(Signed) J. Henry Gesty. 
Baltimore, March 2, 1885. 
The second highest testing cow was 
Oxford Kate 13646, that made 39 pounds 
and 12 ounces butter. She was tested by 
Andrew Banks under direction of the A. 
J. C. C. The third highest testing cow 
was Mary Anne of St. Lambert, that 
made 36 pounds, 12% ounces butter in 
seven days under the direction of 
Messrs. Walter Rutherford and Thomas 
Stock, appointed by A. J. C. C. This 
cow’s butter was analyzed by W. M. 
Habershaw, chemist to the New York 
State Agricultural Society, with the fol¬ 
lowing result l Fat 83.53; salt 3.47; 
casein 1.12; water 12.88. The two-year- 
old heifer that made 30 pounds 15 
ounces butter in seven days was Ethleel 
2d 32291. She was tested by Dr. H. B. 
Titcomb, and at the churning of the 
cream there were present J. M. Mays, 
president of the First National Bank of 
Columbia, Tenn.; Major Campbell 
Brown, M. C. Campbell and Horace 
Polk, of Spring Hill; Mr. Malone, Ed¬ 
ward Baxter and wife, of Nashville, and 
L. W. Cooper, of New Orleans. She 
was two years and eight months old. 
Pier sire was Lord Harry 3445, and her 
dam was Ethleel 18724. 
J. GRANT MORSE. 
LAVAL 
SEPARATORS 
MAKE THE 
BEST BUTTER 
The one purpose of every thinking buyer of a cream 
separator is the making of the most and the best cream 
possible, whether for home buttermaking, creamery patron¬ 
age, or any other use to which cream is put. 
It is possible to “claim” almost everything for the 
various makes of cream separators, but the one indisputable 
fact that would-be competitors do not even attempt to get 
around is the uncpiestionable superiority of the DE LAVAL 
machines in the making of the best butter. 
Year after year, dating back to the invention of the 
“ALPHA-DISC” system of DE LAVAL bowl construc¬ 
tion, butter made by users of DE LAVAL machines has 
scored highest and won all higher awards in every large 
and thoroughly representative butter contest throughout 
the world. 
Beginning with the first great annual contest of the 
NATIONAL BUTTERMAKERS ASSOCIATION in 
1892 and ending with the 1908 contest at Minneapolis, 
March lltli to 13th, not only the HIGHEST but every 
anywhere near high award has been made to users of 
DE LAVAL separators and more than nine-tenths of all 
exhibits scoring above 90% in quality have been DE 
LAVAL made. 
THE ROLL OF HONOR 
ALL DE LAVAL USERS 
The First Prize winners and their scores at every con¬ 
vention of the National Buttermakers Association since its 
organization in 1892 have been as follows: 
1892 Madison, Wis., Louis Brahe, Washington, Iowa.Score 98. 
1893 Dubuque, Iowa, C. W. Smith, Golvin’s Park, Ill.Score 97. 
1895 Rockford, Ill., F. C. Oltrogge, Tripoli, Iowa.Score 98. 
1896 Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Thomas Milton, St. Paul, Minn.... Score 97.82 
1897 Owatonna, Minn., II. N. Miller, Randall, Iowa.Score 98.5 
1898 Topeka, Kan., Samuel Haugdahl, New Sweden, Minn.. Score 98. 
1899 Sioux Falls South Dakota, A. W. McCall, Creston, Iowa..Score 97. 
1900 Dincoln. Neb., H. T. Sondergaard, Litchfield, Minn.... Score 98. 
1901 St. Paul, Minn., E. O. Quenvold, Owatonna, Minn.... Score 97. 
1902 E. L. Duxbury, Green Bay. Wis.Score 98.5 
1904 St. Louis, Mo., L. S. Taylor, GlenvUle, Minn.Score 98.5 
1906 Chicago, Ill., A. Carlson, Kush City, Minn.Score 97. 
1907 Chicago, Ill., A. Lindblad, North Branch, Minn.Score 97.5 
1908 J. C. Post, Hector, Minn.Score 98. 
(There were no conventions in 1894, 1903 and 1905.) 
In the great annual contest just held 504 of the best 
buttermakers in the United States competed, with first, 
second and third, and all important awards, being made to 
users of DE LAVAL machines. 
At each of the two big National Dairy Shows held in 
Chicago in 1906 and 1907 DE LAVAL butter made a 
CLEAN SWEEP of all highest prizes, and the general 
average of all the DE LAVAL made entries was con¬ 
spicuously higher than the general average of all entries 
using other makes of separators. 
Going hack further, DE LAVAL made butter received 
the GRAND PRIZE at the ST. LOUIS WORLD’S FAIR 
in 1904 and as well at the PARIS WORLD’S EXPO¬ 
SITION in 1900. 
In the hundreds of important state and country con¬ 
tests the world over for twenty years the superiority of the 
DE LAVAL separator in the making of fine butter has 
been conclusively proven. 
THE EXPLANATION IS TO BE FOUND IN 
THE IDEAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF 
THE DE LAVAL SEPARATING BOWLS AND THE 
THOROUGHLY PRACTICAL CONDITIONS UNDER 
WHICH DE LAVAL MACHINES MAY BE OPER¬ 
ATED AND USED. 
A new 1908 DE LAVAL catalogue—affording an 
education in this as in other features of separator knowl¬ 
edge—is to be had for the asking. 
THE DE LAVAL SEPARATOR CO., 
42 E. Madison Street 
CHICAGO 
1213 & 1215 Filbert St. 
PHILADELPHIA 
Drumm & Sacramento Sts 
SAN FRANCISCO 
General Offices: 
74C0RTLANDT ST. 
NEW YORK. 
173=177 William Street 
MONTREAL 
14 & 16 Princess Street 
WINNIPEG 
107 First Street 
PORTLAND, OREG. 
