1852', 
THE CULTIVATOR, 
149 
easily and rapidly. It likes a dry and loose soil, and should, 
at the north, while young, be a little protected, for a 
winter or two, with boughs of evergreens, till it gets es¬ 
tablished. It will often thrive in cold sites, on the north 
sides of houses, or under the shade of trees, when it fails in 
sunnier sites, because it is the sunshine, in mid-winter, 
and not the frost which injures it in the latter situations. 
The Giant Ivy, (now quite common about Philadelphia) 
is a larger leaved, richer looking, and more vigorous va¬ 
riety, than the old species. 
11 In New-England, the American Ivy or Virginia 
Creeper may be used as a substitute for the European 
Ivy; both bearing a resemblance only in attaching*them- 
selves firmty (by the little rootlets sent out from their 
branches) to the wall, however hard it may be, and 
neither of them injuring it. Indeed, the European Ivy 
preserves a stone wall from decay. ” 
To those who prefer uniting the useful with the beau¬ 
tiful, the grape and the hop are recommended—of the 
former, the Catawba and Isabella are named as thriving 
best, and to which we would add the Clinton, as being 
remarkable for its hardiness, free growth, and dense 
masses of light colored foliage. The hop is justly pro¬ 
nounced the most rustic of all climbing beauties, and or¬ 
namental in the highest degree, although usually con¬ 
demned to a pole in the kitchen garden or hop field. For 
houses that need occasional painting, it is proposed to 
place the trellis for the support of climbers, at least a 
foot from the exterior walls. 
We cannot extend our extracts further—and our rea¬ 
ders who may be interested in the subject, are strongly 
recommended to procure the work at once, and those 
who are not, can hardly fail to become so, by reading one- 
tenth of its contents. 
Product of Native Cows. 
Eds. Cultivator —In your article in the January 
Cultivator, on the produce of native cows, I was grati¬ 
fied to find that you appreciate, in some measure, the 
value of native cows—sure I am the public do not. 
Without looking farther, we are very apt to value an 
animal in proportion to its cost; and as imported stock 
has cost much more than our native, the public have 
believed they are so much the more valuable. In com¬ 
paring the produce of two cows for instance, we have 
in a measure disregarded the manner and amount of 
feeding, and the size of the animals. 
Now it is certain that the same cow may be made to 
produce from one-qu€&’ter to one-half more milk, by the 
manner of feeding—that is, whether fed on grain, or 
grass feed alone, and the difference in the quality of pas¬ 
ture alone, will produce nearly the same results. 
Again, animals like the improved Short-horns, will 
average from one-fourth to one-fifth larger than our na¬ 
tive cows; and to make a fair comparison between the 
breeds, the Short-horns should produce as much more 
as they are larger in size, because the cost of keeping 
animals, as a general rule, is in proportion to their size. 
There may be exceptions to this rule; but that will not 
militate against the justness of the rule—therefore the 
worth of the animal may be estimated by comparing the 
cost of keeping with the annual produce. 
Now, taking these data as a guide in judging, we can 
very easily ascertain the comparative value of different 
breeds of cattle as milkers. Having been for several 
years connected with Agricultural Societies, I have been 
iu the way of collecting facts respecting the produce of 
cows, which have been presented for premiums at the 
different exhibitions within Hartford county, for years 
back; and these facts have satisfied me that in our de¬ 
sire to improve our breeds of cattle, we have overlooked 
or misprized the worth of our native stock. 
Among the number of certificates, made by the own¬ 
ers of the animals, and now in my possession, I propose 
to give you an abstract of two or three as a specimen of 
the produce of pure native cows—that is, of descendants 
of animals brought to this country more than 60 years ago, 
and you may publish them or not as you shall deem best. 
I think I can vouch for the accuracy of them, because 
they are from farmers I know, and in whom I have full 
confidence. The first is from Mr. Porter, a near neigh¬ 
bor, who was requested to give the whole product for a 
year, which is the only one I have been enabled to ob¬ 
tain for that length of time. Mr. Porter’s verbal state¬ 
ment, on giving me the certificate, was, that he owned 
only this cow, and used during the year milk from that 
cow for his tea and coffee, and that occasionally he ate 
milk at night—(there were two only in the family.)— 
also that a part of the year he furnished a neighbor with 
milk for tea. His certificate gives the weight of each 
separate churning during the year, with the date of the 
same—I will give you the product of each month, as 
shown in his certificate. The cow was of medium size, 
kept on grass and hay only, without grain—age of ani¬ 
mal eleven years: 
lbs. oz. 
October,... 48 2 
November,. 49 15 
December,.... 40 
January,.39 
February,. 33 12 
March,. 34 5 
April,. 31 11 
lbs. ox. 
May,. 36 5 
June,. 44 10 
July,. .. 38 G 
August,. 30 15 
September,.36 7 
463 8 
The Purdy cow produced 16 lbs. in seven days—the 
owner thinks she will average 17 per week through the 
summer months, provided it is in her first month of 
milk—this cow is one-quarter Devonshire, three-quarters 
native. 
The next is a certificate of a heifer of two years—five 
months in milk—reserved three pints milk daily for 
family, and produced 13 pounds butter from 9th to 15th 
October, on grass feed alone—the cow is now seven years 
old, more than medium size, and I have assertained from 
the family who own her, that during the past summer, 
she has produced daily from 24 to 26 quarts of milk,— 
grass feed only. 
Another was a trial, at my request, in the month of 
September, owned by W. Stephens. It was a dry 
month, and the feed not as good as earlier—5| months 
in milk—produced 14 pounds in seven days. Mr. Ste¬ 
phens thinks they made two and a half pounds per day 
from her in the preceding June—cow less than medium 
size. 
The Mallory cow—milk weighed 46£ pounds per day 
—made 10 pounds butter in 7 days, besides selling five 
quarts per day of milk,—month of June, grass feed— 
medium size. 
Now, ask your American Agriculturist friend, to show 
his certificate of cow kept in the same way, of not larger 
size, and when produced, if satisfactory I may perhaps 
send you a second batch that I have in reserve. Res¬ 
pectfully yours, Egbert Cowles. Farmington, Ct. 
0 
