1872 .] 
AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
331 
is given in the article above referred to. That 
suggested by Mr. Mackie is (for cows) as follows: 
SCALE OF POINTS. 
COWS AND HEirEIi3. 
Points. Counts. 
1. Head, email, fine, and rather long. 4 
2. Face, dished, broad between the eyes, and narrow 
between the horns, with receding forehead. 3 
3. Cheek, small. 1 
4. Throat, clean. 2 
5. Muzzle, encircled by a light color. 2 
6. Nostrils, high and open. 1 
7. Horns, small, smooth, crumpled, tapering, yellow 
at the base and black at the tip. 6 
8. Ears, thin. 2 
0. Ears, of a deep orange color within. 5 
10. Eyes, full and placid . 2 
11. Neck, rather long, straight, thin, fine at junction 
with the head, and placed lightly on the 
shoulders. 6 
12. Chest, deep . 3 
13. Withers, thin, and not too high. 2 
14. Barrel, hooped, broad, and deep . 10 
15. Well-ribbed, having but little space between the 
last rib and the hip.. 1 
16. Back, straight from the withers to the top of 
the hip.... 3 
17. Back, straight from the top of the hip to the setting 
on of the tail; and the tail at right angles with 
the back. 2 
18. nips, of good width between. 3 
19. nips, long from point to end of haunch-bone. 2 
20. Tail, fine. 3 
21. Tail, hanging down to hocks, with switch reaching 
the ground. 2 
22. nide, thin and movable, but not too loose. 4 
23. nide, covered with fine soft hair. 6 
24. nide, of a deep orange color where the hair is 
white... 6 
25. Fore-legs, short, straight, and fine. 3 
26. Fore-arm, swelling, and full above the knee. 1 
27. Hind-quarters, from the hock to the point of the 
rump, long, rather straight, and thin. 3 
28. nind-legs, short, straight, and rather fine. 2 
29. nind-legs, squarely placed, not too close together, 
and not to cross in walking. 2 
30. Hoofs, small. 1 
31. Udder, full in form— i. <?., well inline with the belly, 
and not fleshy. 25 
32. Udder, well up behind, and not fleshy..25 
33. Teats, large, squarely placed, and wide apart. 25 
34. Milk-veins, very prominent. 25 
35. Escutcheon, or milk-mirror, high and broad.100 
36. Size, medium. 1 
37. Disposition, quiet and good-natured. 5 
38. Condition, medium. 1 
Perfection... .. 300 
The elaborate argument with which this 
schedule was submitted may be thus condensed : 
The present scale is defective, because it gives 
the same value to minor as to greater points, so 
that the nostrils or the tail may carry the day 
over the udder, a worthless cow being judged 
finer than a good one simply because she is 
prettier. The only way to remedy this fatal 
defect seems to be to construct a scale in which 
the relative values of the most important points 
shall be expressed by high numbers, and the 
values of the less important by lower ones. IVe 
know of no more correct principle than the 
adage, “ Udder means dairy cow." If this be so, 
we may safely express the total values of the 
lacteal organs by the same number we fix upon 
for the values of the minor points (100). We 
thereby protect the lacteal organs from being 
outweighed in the scale by the less important 
organs—as they are in the scale of the Jersey 
Society. What number shall be assigned to the 
escutcheon, or milk-mirror? The only princi¬ 
ple by which we cau be rightly guided is, we 
think, this: The escutcheon shoics, as in a glass, 
the milk-giving capacity of the cow. Its signifi¬ 
cance cau not be truly expressed by the same 
number that is used to denote the value of a 
single one of the lacteal organs. It requires for 
its expression the sum total of the values of all 
the lacteal organs. If these be denoted by 100, 
that is the proper number to express the escut¬ 
cheon. Let us give the escutcheon the place of 
honor which its significance deserves. We ar¬ 
rive thus at a Scale of Points in which perfec¬ 
tion is indicated by 300—minor points counting 
100, the lacteal points 100, and the escutcheon 
100. Our knowledge of the value of the differ¬ 
ent points of an animal is not sufficient to en¬ 
able us to express them with scientific accuracy. 
The most w'e can do is to frame a scale of com¬ 
parative numbers which shall prove convenient 
and useful in judging of the value of animals. 
We can not wait for science to inform us of the 
exact worth of the head compared with the tail, 
but must accept such rules of judging as our 
present imperfect knowledge can give us. 
In discussing the relative merits of these two 
standards by which to judge the breed, we find 
that the Jersey scale has the advantage of pre¬ 
cedence; that it expresses the points of charac¬ 
ter under which these cattle in their native 
home have been greatly improved; and that it 
is of questionable promise to attempt to change 
a system which has produced such decided good 
results. Mr. Mackie’s scale, on the other hand, 
while it has the disadvantage of being novel, 
applies its standard of excellence most empha¬ 
tically to what we may justly consider the more 
essential qualities of any dairy animal. Without 
disregarding those points which give their orna¬ 
mental value to the Jerseys, it subordinates 
them to the milking characteristics. The mo¬ 
tive with which this is attempted no sensible 
farmer will question. The manner in which 
the motive is carried out meets with opposition 
from men whose judgment is worthy of much 
consideration. In my position as Secretary of 
the Jersey Club, I have received many letters on 
all sides of the subject, and have thus been led 
to give it more consideration than I otherwise 
should have done. 
It is stated on one hand that the escutcheon 
or milk-mirror is an ignis fatuus —a chimerical 
creation—and a pack of nonsense; and, on the 
other, that except for the improvement of beef 
cattle any Scale of Points is worse than useless, 
because it must tend to encourage the develop¬ 
ment of the body rather than of the milk-produc¬ 
ing tendency, and that the only standard should 
be a record of the yield of milk or butter. They 
are not few who claim that, as the Jersey breed 
has been brought to its present development by 
the aid of the existing Scale of Points, it would 
be extreme presumption for us (who know the 
breed only by adoption) to attempt to set it aside 
and raise a standard of our own. 
The friends of the new scheme meet these ob¬ 
jections thus: If the theory of the escutcheon 
is not a correct one, Guenon, its discoverer, 
must have had a superhuman insight into the 
character of the cows he examined, for in hun¬ 
dreds of test cases he gave an account of the 
amount of produce, the quality of the milk, and 
the duration of the flow during pregnancy, 
which agreed in all essential points with the 
statements of the owners, who were examined 
apart from him. Furthermore, it is claimed 
that his system is a real system, and capable of 
being taught to others, because in the trials 
which resulted in its approval by the French 
agricultural societies, he and his brother exam¬ 
ined the same animals separately, and their esti¬ 
mates concerning them tallied exactly with each 
other, and with the records previously furnished 
by the owners. This system is not generally 
accepted in all its details, but very many, if 
not most, of the most skillful dairymen in this 
country and in Europe do pay much attention 
to its general features in buying and selling 
dairy cattle—believing the escutcheon to be a 
valuable if not an unmistakable indication of 
milking tendency. It is not unlikely that those 
who object most strongly to the escutcheon, do 
so from lack of knowledge concerning it. 
Guenon did not claim that he who runs may 
read its record, only that it bears a record 
which he who understands the handwriting 
may decipher. 
Concerning the necessary tendency of any 
Scale of Points to foster only the beef and fat¬ 
forming tendency, it is claimed (and with reason) 
that it depends entirely on what the scale is. 
If we say that no cow shall be considered per¬ 
fect unless we can hang a hat on her hips, 
surely it can not be claimed that our standard 
tends to develop beefiness, and so it is with 
every point that comes under consideration ; if 
we give value to all of the features that indicate 
great butter-making capacity, and to all that 
directly opjwse the beef-producing quality, we 
shall encourage the development of a race emi¬ 
nently fitted for the dairy. If prizes are to be 
awarded according to the records of perform¬ 
ance at the milk-pail or churn, who shall verify 
the records? The premiums would go to those 
who had the largest yield of brag and dishon¬ 
esty in their milkers. We can not know whose 
figures are true and whose untrue, and we must 
judge of the cow by her pedigree, and by what 
we can learn from a personal examination of 
her. In order that we may judge wisely and 
fairly, we must have a judicious and an invari¬ 
able standard or Seale of Points. 
(to be continued.) 
---—MSB <l> gaanrar--- 
Ogden Farm Papers—Ho. 32, 
Inquiries are still made about the details of 
the “deep-can system,” most of which are fully 
answered by previous papers of this series, and 
it would be unfair to old readers to occupy 
space with their repetition. The recent hot 
weather, however (hotter than Newport has 
often known), has given us a better opportunity 
of testing the plan than we have had before. 
For two or three weeks we had by spells in¬ 
tense heat, high winds, thick fogs, heavy thun¬ 
der-storms, chiily nights, and, in fact, every vari¬ 
ety of weather of which an American summer 
is capable. In all this time, our butter was ab¬ 
solutely uniform in quality, and as good as it is 
possible for butler to be. 
The secret of this uniformity (which under 
the common system of setting milk in shallow 
pans on shelves would have been impossible in 
such weather) was that the milk was kept at a 
uniform temperature. The surface exposed to 
the air was very small, and the milk took its 
temperature from the water in which the cans 
were immersed. This water (pumped up by a 
windmill from a well 1,000 feet distant, and 
conveyed through wooden pipes three feet under 
ground) v T a3 not perceptibly affected by the 
heat of the atmosphere. It varied but little 
from 58°. 
We hope to secure the same advantage in 
winter by heating the tank-room sufficiently to 
prevent the water from becoming too cold— 
which it occasionally did during the past win¬ 
ter—and by heating also the room in which the 
skimming, churning, and butter-working are 
done. To effect this heating by the use of com¬ 
mon stoves would involve the necessity of keep¬ 
ing up two fires, and the certainty of occasion¬ 
ally having the air tainted by coal-gas. The 
plan decided on is to build a r. nail hot-water 
furnace in an outer apartment, and to carry the 
water-pipes around each of the two rooms. 
