THE CULTIVATOR. 
193 
Messrs. Gaylord & Tucker —In the accompany¬ 
ing cut, I think you will recognize my cow “ Apfolo- 
nia,” which you have frequently seen at Mount Hope, 
except, perhaps, that she is made a little too long in the 
body and neck; otherwise it strikes me that it is a most 
perfect likeness. She is one of those I selected in the 
spring of 1838, from Mr. Whitaker’s stock in Yorkshire, 
England, then in calf by the celebrated bull “ Prince 
of Northumberland,” and is by good judges pronounced 
to be a most perfect model, and combining I think as 
many good points as any cow I have known. She is a 
very superior milker 3 indeed such a tendency has nutri¬ 
ment to the pail, that during the milking season, with 
her a very long one, it is almost impossible to keep up 
her flesh; but no sooner is she dry than with astonish¬ 
ing rapidity she puts it on ; illustrating perhaps a uni¬ 
versal fact that the best milkers (quantity and quality 
considered) are the best feeders, though this rule will 
not always work the other way ; but that it is entirely 
within the control of breeders to make the improved 
Short Horns every thing that can be desired for the dai¬ 
ry, I have no doubt; and in accordance with this belief 
I have observed the practice to be in England, and so 
would it probably have been here but for the paucity of 
their numbers and the justly high value put upon their 
peculiar combination of other perfections. 
You may recollect among the herd at Mount Hope, is 
a large cow we call “ Susan,” imported by Mr. Smith, 
an Englishman, formerly of this city; from her we have 
taken regularly through the favorable season over thirty 
quarts of milk a day; and her family, of which there 
are several, all give evidence of possessing the same 
properties. Now can any one doubt but that by cross¬ 
ing these with that of the cow whose likeness is given 
above, or with any other of like character, the issue 
would be a great improvement, even for milk, on the 
best of our native stock; but since the opinion seems 
to be generally entertained in this country that the im¬ 
proved Short Horns are not desirable for the dairy, 
while I feel persuaded the fact is otherwise, will you 
allow me to quote from Mr. Dickson, a very intelligent 
writer on cattle, (see the Dec. No. of the 2d vol. of the 
Cultivator,) who says the owners of public dairies in 
London, Edinburgh and Liverpool, prefer the Short 
Horns, as the greatest and most steady milkers, and that 
it is now difficult to see cows of any other breed than 
Short Horns, or crosses with them, in their stalls. 
Mr. C. H. Bolton, in a communication to the British 
Farmer’s Magazine, says he is justified in asserting that 
improved Short Horns, inferior to none for the grazier, 
may always be selected and bred with the most valua¬ 
ble dairy properties—that even a moderately good 
milker of this kind will be found to yield as much but¬ 
ter in the week as one of the unimproved giving aAnmch 
greater quantity, and that reasonably^rothingless could 
be expected from an animal so proverbially given to ex¬ 
cessive secretions of flesh and fat, than that she would 
also produce other rich secretions. 
The last authority I shall mention is Mr. Youatt, in 
his excellent treatise on cattle, when, in speaking of the 
dairies that supply London and its environs with milk, 
he says, “ they are composed, with very few exceptions 
of Short Horns, and almost invariably with a cross of 
the improved blood; that many of the cows in the 
London dairies are as fine specimens of improved Short 
Horns as can probably be produced and he very justly 
remarks that the universal preference given to this 
breed by such a body of men, differing materially on 
many branches of the treatment of cattle, is perfectly 
satisfactory as to their value ; and farther, that when¬ 
ever the improved Short Horns have been crossed with 
other cattle, their superiority is equally manifested in 
respect to dairy qualifications, as in every other. Now 
if this evidence is sufficient to show that improved Short 
Horns are not necessarily bad milkers, then do I think 
it will be admitted that, well selected, they do possess a 
combination of perfections, and that the stock of our coun¬ 
try would be immensely increased in value by adopting 
them. 
Their early maturity, combined with the capacity to 
continue growing ; their disposition to carry flesh, to 
feed rapidly and make a great return for the food con¬ 
sumed ; the quality of their beef, the hardiness of their 
constitution, their mild and quiet temperament and the 
beauty of their form, I believe it is generally admitted 
cannot be surpassed. 
I am gentlemen, truly yours, 
E. P. PRENTICE. 
Mount-Hope , near Albany, Nov. 16 th, 1840. 
THE HEREFORD®, SHORT HORNS, &c. 
Messrs. Gaylord & Tucker —In the August num¬ 
ber of the Cultivator, Mr. Bement of Albany, expresses 
the opinion that the statement made by me in a pre¬ 
vious number, “ that the Durham, would lost in milking 
properties by a cross with the Devon or Hereford ,” was 
incorrect. Mr. Bement’s skill as a breeder and his can¬ 
dor as a gentleman, to both of which I am happy to 
bear ample testimony, entitle his opinion to much re¬ 
spect. The subject too, derives additional interest from 
the recent importation of Herefords. and the introduc¬ 
tion of several valuable herds of Devons into our state. 
The essay of mine from which Mr. Bement quotes, 
was designed rather to correct several popular errors, 
than to furnish a text book for the scientific breeder. 
But brief and imperfect as was the account it contained 
of the Herefords, much subsequent examination both of 
English writers and living English breeders, has only 
confirmed me in the correctness of the positions therein 
assumed, particularly of the one controverted by Mr. B. 
His evidence, founded on the results of his own expe¬ 
rience, is good as far as it goes—but a few instances do 
not establish a rule. The entire preponderance of tes¬ 
timony both of writers and breeders in England, is 
against the milking properties both of the Devon and 
the Hereford. The work on British Cattle by Mr. Youatt, 
is acknowledged the standard work of the day on the 
subject on which it treats. Mr. Bement relies on it as 
his authority in favor of the Herefords. On the same 
page from which he quotes, I find the following (one 
would think) conclusive statements—“ The Herefords 
are far worse milkers than the Devons. This is so gene¬ 
rally acknowledged that while there are many dairies of 
Devon cows in various parts of the country, none of 
which however are very profitable to their owners, a 
dairy of Herefords is rarely to be found.” Again, “ the 
Hereford cow is apparently a very inferior animal. Not 
only is she no milker, but even her form has been sacri¬ 
ficed by the breeder.” Our friend of the Three Hills 
Farm, is, I presume, too good a lawyer to attempt to 
invalidate his own witness ! 
If such arc the facts, how are we to suppose that the 
Short Horns, concededly the first breed in England cr 
America as milkers, will suffer no deterioration in this 
property, by a cross with a breed so decidedly inferior! 
Whatever results individual experiments may have led 
to, such a position would be at variance with every es¬ 
tablished maxim of breeding. 
I desii-e to be distinctly understood in my remarks as 
taking no ground against either the Devon or the Here¬ 
ford, except in the single point involved in this contro¬ 
versy. The stylish and high-bred Devon has always 
been a decided favorite with me. Of the Hereford I 
know little personally, but am prepared from the Eng¬ 
lish publications of the day, as well as the testimony of 
American breeders, to believe that in positions suited to 
them, they may be regarded as a valuable acquisition to 
our American breeds of cattle. On the large and little 
cultivated prairie farms of the western states, where 
early maturity and milking properties are of compara¬ 
tively little consequence, and where they must be driven 
great distances to market, the Hereford can have few 
equals. The Hon. Henry Clay, of Kentucky, was the 
first importer of this breed into the United States, and 
the following extracts from a letter which I received 
from him, bearing date September 21st, will I doubt not 
be read with much interest: 
“ I first imported, upwards of twenty years ago, two 
pair of the Hereford reds, and bred from crosses be¬ 
tween them until I was induced to discontinue, in con¬ 
sequence of an apprehension that I should breed in-and- 
in too far, which in some instances I found to be the 
case. I could not obtain conveniently crosses from 
other females of the same race.” 
Mr. Clay afterwards remarks: 
u My opinion is that the Herefords make better work 
cattle, are hardier, and will, upon being fattened, take 
themselves to market better than their rivals. They 
are also fair milkers. On the other hand, the Durhams, 
I think have the advantage in earlier maturity, in beau¬ 
ty, and in the quantity of milk which they will yield. 
They will also attain greater size and weight even.” 
“ The choice between the two races should be regu¬ 
lated somewhat by circumstances. If one has rich, 
long and luxuriant grasses, affording a good bite, and 
has not too far to drive to market, he had better breed 
the Durhams, otherwise the Herefords.” 
After some remarks in relation to the origin of the 
two races, he continues : 
“ The Herefords resemble the Devons—the race of 
New-England cattle, and a fine race it is. But the He¬ 
refords have the advantage over them of greater size, 
greater length, more power consequently for draft, and 
are I think quite as quick in the step and as good at the 
pail.” 
“ I have thus,” he says, “ expressed my own opinion; 
but I must add that here, in Kentucky, the Durhams 
are generally preferred to all other races. Our grasses 
are rich and abundant, and our blue grass especially (a 
name improperly given, for it is the green sward) is an 
object of great admiration. The Durhams are much 
more generally distributed than the Herefords, there 
being none of the latter, within my knowledge, but 
what have sprung from my importation.” 
Mr. Clay’s opinions cannot be regarded otherwise 
than as strong testimony in favor of the Herefords— 
though I presume his general statements are to be un¬ 
derstood to apply as much to his mixed as to his pure 
bred animals. That mixture was with the Short Horn, 
and it is not impossible that this drop of alien blood has 
had a significant bearing on their “ fair” milking proper¬ 
ties. Nor is it to be presumed that this cross has resulted 
in very serious deterioration to the Herefords in other 
respects. 
Since writing the above, the Cultivator of November 
has come to hand containing a communication from Mr, 
Sotham, on the subject of the Herefords, in which he 
lakes the same position with Mr. Bement, in relation to 
their milking properties j and also denies the correct¬ 
ness of other portions of my description of them, in the 
essay already alluded to. Mr. Sotham has doubtless 
imported some very valuable animals. I have not had 
the pleasure of seeing them, but have conversed with 
several very intelligent breeders, who have examined 
them closely, and who speak of them favorably. One 
gentleman writes me “ They have nearly the size and 
breadth of loin of the Durham, but are coarser in the 
head, and are not so handsome.” 
This is certainly a very different description from that 
given by Mr. Youatt. How are we to account for the 
discrepancy ? It is but six years since Mr. Youatt wrote, 
and his remarks cannot therefore be supposed to apply 
to the breed as they existed ‘‘twenty or thirty years ago,” 
as suggested by Mr. Sotham. It is well known too, that 
his great work on British Cattle was published under 
the auspices of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful 
Knowledge ; and that he was aided in it by the first 
breeders of England, who are equally responsible with 
himself for the correctness of his statements. Writing 
with little individual interest or bias of his own, it is 
perfectly apparent through the whole work, that it is 
his aim to present every breed, possessing any claims, in 
its most favorable coloring. The quotations made by 
me are neither isolated nor garbled ones. The history 
of the struggle between the Durhams and the Here¬ 
fords, (as well as the Devons, Lancashires, See.) is the 
same throughout nearly all the most fertile districts of 
England. In almost every one the star of the Short 
Horns has risen to the ascendant. It strikes me as idle 
to talk of “unjust accusations,” “prejudice and abuse,” 
as directed towards any particular breed. The contest 
has been a warm one—many severe things have been 
said on all sides—but how are we to suppose that the 
Herefords have been more “ abused,” or called on to 
encounter more “prejudice” than their, rivals 1 One 
would naturally infer precisely the contrary. The Here¬ 
fords are an indigenous breed—or at all events they sepa¬ 
rated from the parent stock , (the Devon) at a period 
“ whereof the memory of man runneth not to the con¬ 
trary.” On the other hand it is less than a century 
since a little handful of cattle in the hands of three or 
four breeders on the banks of the Tees, were attaining 
that superiority which has since asserted itself, beyond 
intervening oceans,on the then scarcely discovered Ohio. 
“Prejudice” is ordinarily enlisted on the side of anti¬ 
quity, and opposition to innovation. The Herefords 
were a known and favorite breed, long before the im¬ 
proved family of the Short Horns had their origin. The 
The Short Horns were the innovators —innovators in 
size, shape, and last but not least in popular estimation 
— color* Is it not they then, instead ol their opponents, 
which have been made the particular victims of “abuse” 
and “ prejudice.” I confess I have always so regarded 
it. I will cite one specimen of unfairness and “ abuse” 
which has been frequently resorted to against them. It 
is this. The advocates of other breeds in making their 
pretended experiments between improved Short Horns 
and their own favorite breed, in feeding properties, &c. 
have repeatedly selected the unimproved Short Horns 
(known as Lincolns, Teeswater, Holderness, &e.) to 
make the trial with, and then published it to the 
world as a fair experiment! But enough of this. 
Mr. Sotham differs as widely from Mr. Clay, as 
from Mr. Youatt. Mr. Clay says, “ the Herefords 
* I should perhaps except the midland counties where the 
the Lancashires, Cravens, Leicesters, &c. prevailed, which 
also exhibited much of the interdicted white. 
