178 
AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST 
Walks and Talks on the Farm—Ho. 53. 
Do you recollect a conversation we had about 
the system adopted by the Herkimer County 
dairymen, of breeding and feeding cows solely 
for milk; without anj r reference to their value 
for beef when they were no longer profitable 
for the dairy? I endeavored to show that at 
the present price of beef it would be better to 
keep a cow five years and then sell her for beef, 
and get another and keep her five years and 
sell her also for beef, than it was to keep one 
cow ten years until she was “ used up ” and of 
little value except for the hide. In the latter 
case, we figured a total profit of $210 in the ten 
years ; and in the former case, a profit of $125 
in five years on one cow, and consequently a 
total profit on the two cows during the ten 
years of $250. (See Agriculturist for Feb., p. 54.) 
A Cortland Co. farmer writes that I have 
made a mistake—that the profit on the old cow 
is $210, and on the young cow $125, and that 
consequently the present system of keeping cows 
until they arc used up is more profitable than 
of turning them off at an earlier age for beef, 
lie overlooks the fact that in the latter case we 
have two cows instead of one. The profit in the 
ten years is just double what he supposes. There 
is no mistake, except that the profit on the 
young cow is $130 instead of $125, and conse¬ 
quently $200 instead of $250, a mistake which 
adds ten dollars to the strength of the argument. 
I was very careful not to overestimate the prof¬ 
its of the new system. I think it would be easy 
to show greater advantages than those which 
we claimed. With beef at famine prices it seems 
a pity to keep a cow until there is nothing left 
of her but skin and bones. 
The same writer says: “ Some other ideas 
of Walks and Talks in the February No. differ 
from what I believe dairymen around here hold 
to, as when he says: ‘It takes more food to 
produce a pound of cheese than a pound of 
beef.’ I cannot say he is mistaken, as I have not 
tested it.” He then asks if the cow that pro¬ 
duced 600 lbs. of cheese in a year would pro¬ 
duce more than 600 lbs. of beef with the same 
food. Probably not. But a cow with equally 
good digestive organs, that is so constituted 
that all the food shall be changed into beef 
instead of into cheese, will gain a good deal 
more than 600 lbs. in live weight. 
It is an extraordinary cow that will produce 
600 lbs. of cheese in a year. Such a cow must 
necessarily eat a large amount of food, and of 
the best quality, and the probabilities are that 
at the commencement of the season she is in 
high condition, and as thin as a shadow at the 
end of it. In other words, although the season 
may not last over eight months, the food of the 
whole year is used to produce the 600 lbs. of 
cheese, and the calf. The flesh and fat she had 
stored up during the winter would all find their 
way to the milk-pail before the end of the sum¬ 
mer. Mr. Sheldon’s Short-horn calf weighed at 
6 months old, 652 lbs.; at 9 months old, 928 lbs.; 
at 12 months, 1,216 lbs., and at 18 months, 1,806 
lbs. Of course this is an extraordinary animal— 
but so is also the cow that will give 600 lbs. of 
cheese in a year. Both have splendid digestive 
organs, and both unquestionably had all the 
food they could digest and convert into beef or 
cheese. Had this animal been killed at twelve 
months old, he would have dressed at least 800 
lbs. And you must recollect that in the case of 
the cow the machine for converting the food 
into cheese is already made—and it required at 
least three years feeding to get the machine in 
running order. But this yearling Short-horn 
made nearly the whole of his own machine as 
he went along, and turned off 800 lbs. of beef. 
But of course such facts as these prove noth¬ 
ing. They are not comparative. The main 
reason for supposing that a pound of cheese re¬ 
quires more food for its production than a pound 
of beef is this. Beef is derived from the blood 
of the animal, and so is cheese. Their origin is 
identical,and composition very similar. But there 
is far less water in cheese than there is in beef. 
A first-class American cheese analysed by Dr. 
Voelcker contained in one hundred parts: 
Water.27.29 
Butter.35.41 
Casein.25. S7 
Milk sugar, lactic acid, and extractive matters. G.21 
Mineral matters, (Ash).5.23 
Lawes & Gilbert give the composition of the 
carcass of a fat calf, a half fat ox, and of a fat ox : 
Fat calf. Half fat ox. Fat ox. 
Water. 62.30 54.00 45.60 
Fat. 16.60 22.60 34.S0 
t >“» «•» »■» 
Mineral matter I . , Q ~ Kl . . -r 
(Ash). ) 4 - 48 °- 50 4,06 
Look at these figures and tell me which would 
require the most food to produce it, a hundred 
pounds of cheese or a hundred pounds of beef? 
Take the half fat ox, (which is the condition in 
which most of our cattle are slaughtered), and 
it will be seen that the beef contains twice as 
mUch water as the cheese. If there was no wa¬ 
ter in the cheese, and no water in the beef, the 
composition per cent would be as follows: 
Cheese. Beef. 
Fat or Butter. 4S!4 49 
Nitrogenous compounds or Casein. 35>/£ 38 % 
Sugar, lactic acid, &c. 8 l / 2 none. 
The beef contains a little more fit than the 
cheese, and some 3 per cent more nitrogenous 
matter, but the cheese has 8 1 | 3 per cent sugar, etc. 
Looking at these figures as they stand, one 
would say that it took about as much food to 
make a pound of dried beef as a pound of dried 
cheese. But we do not sell beef and cheese in this 
chemically dry condition. As ordinarily sold, 
the cheese contains only about half as much 
water as the beef. The cow that makes 600 lbs. 
of cheese in a year has as much fat and nitro¬ 
genous matter extracted from her blood as 
would make about 900 lbs. of beef. And that 
this is all derived from the food directly or indi¬ 
rectly, no sane man will question. It takes, 
therefore, more food to produce a pound of 
cheese than a pound of beef. 
The same writer thinks it a mistake to sup¬ 
pose “that enriching the land either by hoeing 
or manuring, causes it to grow richer grass.” 
He thinks “2 tons of hay from two acres is 
worth more than 2 tons from one acre.” Some¬ 
times it is, and sometimes it is not. It depends 
on the character of the land and on the nature 
of the grass. Two tons of timothy from two 
acres of upland w r ould be worth more than two 
tons of sedges, weeds, rushes, and coarse grass, 
from one acre of rich, swampy land. So far he 
is right. But this does not touch the point. 
Take a field of good, dry upland. Let half of 
it be enriched by thorough cultivation and ma¬ 
nuring, and the grass on this half will be sweet¬ 
er and more nutritious than on the other half. 
Top-dress an acre or two of pasture land with 
some rich, well-rotted manure. It will bring in 
finer grasses and thicken the sward, and the 
cows will very soon tell you which grass they 
like best. They will not touch the other grass 
as long as a bite can be obtained on the top- 
dressed portion. 
This man is hard to please. He thinks every¬ 
[May, 
thing I said in the February No. is “ faulty.” 
He cannot see why high farming is any more 
necessary or profitable on high-priced land than 
on cheap land. He thinks “good farming pays 
the best anywhere.” But we were not talking 
about good farming, but high farming. If he 
had written : “My idea is that high farming 
pays best anywhere,” he would have met the 
case. And if he had thought a moment, ho 
would have seen that this proposition is not true. 
Good farming i3 sometimes high farming and 
sometimes not. Plowing under a crop of clover 
for wheat is frequently good farming, but it is 
anything but high farming. Summer-fallowing 
is often the best and cheapest way of cleaning 
and enriching land, and in such a case is good 
farming, but it is never high farming. High 
farming would summer-fallow the land and 
have a heavy crop growing at the same 
time. The market gardens around New 
York afford excellent examples of high farm¬ 
ing. Read Henderson’s interesting book on 
“ Gardening for Profit,” and you will get an 
idea of how much produce can be raised on an 
acre of land. They employ a working capital 
of $300 an acre; underdrain thoroughly; use 
from 50 to 100 tons of manure on each acre every 
year; have two, three, and four crops in suc¬ 
cession during the season on the same land ; 
never let a weed show itself; pay from $100 to 
$300 an acre rent and taxes, and make a hand¬ 
some profit besides. This is high farming. 
They have to pay an enormous price for the 
land, and they must farm high, or not farm at 
all. They could not afford to let their land lie 
idle a year in order that they might summer- 
fallow or plow under a crop of clover. Where 
land is worth only $50 an acre, we can afford to 
adopt a slower method of enriching it than 
when it is worth $500, or even $200 per acre. 
He quotes my remark: “ You can afford to 
pay more for manure that will double the crops 
on land worth $150 per acre, than on land worth 
only $50,” and asks “Why so? If doubling 
the crops on good farms is profitable, why not 
on poor ones equally so ?” Why not stick to 
the proposition? He should say, “If doubling 
the crops on land worth $150 an acre, by using 
400 lbs. of guano costing $20, is profitable, why 
not on a farm worth only $50 an acre ?” 
Had he put the question in this form he might 
have discovered a reason. You can afford to 
spend more time in order to double the interest 
on $150 than to double it on $50. Mark you, I 
did not say the Herkimer Co. dairy farms were 
worth $150 to $200 an acre. I only said if such 
was the case it would pay better to adopt high 
farming than it would on land worth only $50 
per acre. I can afford to spend $30 an acre in 
underdraining my farm in Western New York, 
but it is very questionable whether $30 an acre 
can be profitably spent in draining a farm in a 
section of Iowa, where good, dryland could be 
bought for $10 an acre. Where corn is worth 
$1.25 a bushel it may pay to expend 25 cents a 
bushel in grinding and cooking it for the hogs, 
but where corn is worth only 35 or 40 cents a 
bushel it would hardly pay to expend 25 cents 
a bushel for the purpose. 
I have just sold 15 tons of straw to the paper 
men for $150—they drawing it themselves—and 
the Deacon says be met Peart, the butcher, 
yesterday, who told him that he “was going to 
get some one to write an article for the papers 
giving me ‘Hail Columbia’for preaching one 
thing and practising another.” 
Pity the sorrows of a poor old editor! I do 
not think it is a good plan, as a general rule, to 
