372 
AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
[October, 
tons of good hay at a single cutting, than $100 
for that which will produce only half a ton. The 
latter must remain unprofitable for some veal’s, 
and will consume (in time and money and loss 
of profit) more than the difference of price be¬ 
fore it will be as productive as the former. 
There is a certain satisfaction in reclaiming 
worn-out land, but I am yearly more and more 
convinced that it pays better and gives much 
more satisfaction to farm land that does not 
need reclaiming. There are few soils now so 
rich that they will not make more improvement 
and pay better returns for the same amount of 
labor and manure than an exhausted and worth¬ 
less one will. “ The best first” is my motto. 
When the very best field of the farm has been 
so far improved that it will not pay for more 
improving, then.go to the next best; but good 
land, like a good plow, is more profitable to 
work with than poor land, and should enjoy 
the concentration of our best efforts. When it 
is so rich and in such good condition that fur¬ 
ther outlay will not materially benefit it, then 
move on to another field; but don’t spend 
money and time in draining and clearing a 
swamp for the sake of a half-crop, when thesame 
expense will give a double crop on better laud. 
Jersey Cattle, and Scales of .Points. 
BT GEORGE E. WARING, JR., OT OGDEN FARM, 
(Secretary of the American Jersey Cattle Chib.) 
(conclusion.) 
It is true that the Jersey breed has been made 
what it is under the influence of the Jersey 
Society’s Settle of Points. It is by no means 
certain that if it is brought under the influence 
of a wiser scale it may not still further improve. 
Opinions ma}' fairly differ as to whether the 
Mackie scale is a wiser one, but it can not be 
assumed that perfection has already been 
reached, and that it is of no use to try for im¬ 
provement. For my part, I think there are 
grave defects in the old scale, and that the fun¬ 
damental theory of the new one is very good. 
If I hesitate to applaud its details, so far as I 
agree with them, it is because it seems the bet¬ 
ter course to invite further discussion, and to 
encourage all the suggestions that breeders may 
have to offer. It is surely safe to maintain that 
no perfect Scale of Points has yet been made, 
and that an intelligent, discussion of the subject 
can only do good—never harm. It is therefore 
to be hoped that those who object to the Mackie 
scale will state not only the fact that they do 
object, but the reason: 9 why they object. Only 
in this way can the best result be achieved. 
Some of the reasons why I object to the old 
scale are as follows (for the sake of brevity, I 
give only the number of the article considered, 
following the list for cows on page 250 of the 
present volume): (4.) If “fine” means small, I 
doubt its fitness. I fancy the opposite, without 
knowing that it has any particular significance. 
(5.) This is not of sufficient consequence to 
count as much as (28) for instance. (7.) I think 
an examination of the best dairy cows would 
show that their ears are usually large, coarse, 
and hairy. ($•) Would prefer a “ewe” neck— 
hollowed out between the head and the shoul¬ 
ders. (11.) N->t for a dairy cow; the thinner 
the better. (12.) Behind, yes, but not at the 
girth • the smaller the better there, if not out of 
pro- rtion. (13.) This means beef ratlibr than 
mik. (14.) Not essential, but comely. (15.) 
Beef, again, and rarely seen in a first-olass Jer¬ 
sey butter-yielder, (16.) Doubtful, except for 
beef find beauty, (18.) Can if bp too, loose ?■ 
(22.) This generally accompanies large lungs, 
which a butter cow should not have. (23.) 
“Well-filled up” means beef again—the thinner 
and more delicate, the better for the dairy. 
(27.) Unimportant. These are some of the de¬ 
tails. The worst fault of the scale is that the 
same value is given to non-essential as to essen¬ 
tial points. It provides that a cow may be 
branded if she has 29 (out of 34) points, but 
not otherwise ; consequently, a cow would not 
be disqualified for the highest honor if she was 
entirely defective in the items of udder, teats, 
and milk-veins, and had straight, coarse, thick 
horns; while a cow of the greatest excellence 
in these all-important particulars might be re¬ 
jected simply because her cheek, muzzle, ears, 
eyes, tail, and hoofs were not up to the standard 
of beauty It seems to me that this is an unan¬ 
swerable argument in favor of a change in the 
scale. If Mr. Mackie’s is not good enough to 
displace it, let us try again. I confess that I 
should be glad to have it adopted, at least so 
far as to secure its full discussion and im¬ 
provement. 
So much for the Scale of Points. The writer 
of the article under consideration says that 
what we know as “solid color” is popular in 
England “no doubt in consequence of its more 
aristocratic appearance.” His arguments in 
favor of this coloring do not seem to be con¬ 
vincing. Aristocratic appearance does not de¬ 
pend on color nor on form, only on usage. If 
solid-colored animals are in fashion in England 
so are fat ones, and we can have no fault to 
find. What I especially desire is that, in this 
country, the aristocratic Jersey shall fill the 
niche—for which the breed is so admirably 
adapted—where the greatest beauty and the 
greatest utility shall go hand in hand. I have 
never seen a really good Jersey cow—a deep 
milker and a large butter-yielder—that was not 
also a beautiful cow. Those characteristics 
which indicate good dairy qualities—fine skin, 
silky coat, full placid eye, crumpled waxy horn, 
thin neck and shoulder, full flank, delicate 
limb, and fine udder—are beautiful in them¬ 
selves, and tire suggestive of a generous bounty 
of yield. Such a cow will attract admiration at 
first sight from every man or woman who ever 
fed on milk. It is sometimes necessary to have 
a cultivated taste to admire the aristocratic solid- 
colored cows whose black switches are flaunted 
in our faces as compensating for the heavy fore¬ 
quarters and light hind-quarters which such 
animals too often have. I have no sort of ob¬ 
jection to the solid color, nor to the “black 
points,” nor to any harmonious coloring that a 
cow may have. All I claim is that the fashion 
for these factitious distinctions has been started 
(in America at least) partly by men who are 
anything but practical breeders and dairymen, 
who are fledglings in the whole business of 
farming; and partly by cattle dealers who have 
sought to catch their fancy (and their fancy 
prices), and to encourage their fallacious not ions, 
in order to palm off upon them animals which 
they have been able to buy at low prices here 
and in Jersey, because they had little else to 
recommend them but these “non-essential” 
qualifications. I have made a personal exami¬ 
nation of a number of the “solid-colored ” im¬ 
portations that have been sold at high prices on 
their arrival, and am convinced that if the ar¬ 
bitrary action of the Jersey Cattle Club bad not 
placed a practical embargo on the traffic, the 
well-deserved and very promising popularity of 
the breed would have been utterly ruined in a 
very few years. 
£ repeat, and with emphasis, that I do notoh-. 
ject to the solid color. I only assert that most 
of the solid-colored animals that have been 
imported were imported because they were 
solid-colored, not because they were good cows; 
that neither in this country nor in Jersey do the 
best and most experienced breeders attach any 
considerable importance to the question of 
color; that the best cows (and the most beauti¬ 
ful) very rarely have the aristocratic marking ; 
and that the cows which do have it are more 
often poor milkers than otherwise. Not be¬ 
cause the color is detrimental, but because it 
has been sought, when sought at all, as a pri¬ 
mary object, and the indispensable butter-pro¬ 
ducing properties have been relegated to a sec¬ 
ondary position. It. is not unlikely that many a 
bull which might have stamped a lasting im¬ 
provement on this charming race has been 
slaughtered in his infancy because of white 
marks, to give place to a beefy, milklcss brute 
who rejoiced his owner’s eye with a black tuft 
at the end of his tail. Let us make our Jerseys 
as beautiful as we can, but, above all, let us not 
forget that “ handsome is that handsome does,” 
and seek first a full butter-tub, letting such 
other good things be added thereunto as nature 
kindly sends us. 
Tobacco Culture—The Harvest. 
The reports that are now and then published 
of tire large profits received from a crop of 
tobacco naturally excite in those farmers w ho 
are barely making a living a desire to engage 
in its culture. No one should undertake to grow 
this or any other special crop upon a large 
scale at first, as in the large majority of cases 
failuie and loss are sure to follow. While it is 
true that rrowershave in certain localities made 
large profiis by this crop, it must be borne in 
mind that there, are few plants more directly 
affected by soil an I climate than tobacco. The 
leaf raised in the Connecticut Valley is exceed¬ 
ingly poor stuff as tobacco, but it has a color 
and texture which adapt it to particular uses 
not found elsewhere. The Connecticut leaf is 
used for wrappers, on account of its fine, soft, 
and silky texture, while the body of the cigar is 
made from tobacco grown elsewhere, which, 
while altogether inferior in these qualities, is its 
superior in strength and flavor. Different sec¬ 
tions of the valley only a fcw T miles apart pro¬ 
duce a leaf largely differing in quality and price. 
Besides these local influences that the novice 
must take into account, it must be remembered 
that there is no crop which demands more con¬ 
stant attention. From the day the plants are put 
into the fl Id until the cured product is ready for 
market, it demands in every stage the greatest 
care, and the omission to do the right thing at 
the right time will result in the ruin or the great 
deterioration of the crop. If some tobacco- 
growers make money, it is only by unremitting 
attention to their business. As an illustration 
of some of the difficulties attendant upon the 
culture, we may state that one planter within 
our knowledge was obliged to set his field fifteen 
times before he could get, a stand. Then comes 
a constant fight with weeds and insects, the 
last-named being often disastrously destructive. 
One of our artists, who has been among the 
tobacco-growers of Connecticut, gives us some 
illustrations of the operations in the later culti¬ 
vation and harvesting. The plant being grown 
solely for the leaf, it is treated in such a manner 
as to produce the greatest development of 
foliage. If left to itself, the plant, after having 
produced.a certain number of leaves of a morn 
