98 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
Durham Stock as Milkers. 
Under this title an article, or speech, is going the rounds of 
our agricultural and political papers, purporting to be from Rev. 
Henry Colman, which is pregnant with so much error, and, 
coming from that high and responsible source, of such mis¬ 
chievous tendency, as I believe it, to the welfare of our dairy¬ 
men and stock breeders, that, although seldom appearing be¬ 
fore the reading public, I feel bound at the threshold of its cir¬ 
culation, to enter, as the lawyers would say, my caveat against 
it. 
That there may be no misunderstanding in the matter, let 
me at once remark, that no one can have a higher respect 
than myself for the exalted character of Mr. Colman, in all 
that constitutes the true gentleman and the honest man; and 
that no individual within my knowledge is so capable to ac¬ 
complish the responsible ana important duties of Agricultural 
Commissioner ol the proud Commonwealth of Massachusetts 
as himself I have known him intimately for years, and a 
knowledge of his worth and of the high authority of his de¬ 
clarations compels me, humble as are my pretensions, to as¬ 
sume an attitude in opposition to his remarks. 
The value of the neat cattle in the State of New-York, ac¬ 
cording to the returns of the late census for 1840, is not less 
than $15,000,000; and probably, exceeding that amount. If to 
these be added those of New-England, which are at least of 
equal value, it will present an aggregate of thirty millions of 
dollars, invested in that branch ol agriculture alone. Now, if 
by adopting an improved breed of these animals, the same 
number, by exhibiting in their improved forms a superior 
excellence, and an additional value of 33j per cent, which is 
a very moderate advance in the improved races, it would 
swell this already vast capital into the round sum of $40,000,- 
000! This fact will at once show that the subject is of im¬ 
mense consequence to our farmers at large, and of no trifling 
moment to all in its details. 
But for the purpose of illustrating my remarks, and even at 
the hazard of adding to the prolixity of this paper, I will ask 
you to insert at once the article in question, requesting you 
also to number each distinct paragraph of Mr. Col'man’s es¬ 
say, for more convenient reference: 
[From the Yankee Farmer .] 
“ As we had not Toom last week to report all the doings at 
the Agricultural Meeting, and as the subject of Durham stock, 
as milkers, compared with our native cows, is of high impor¬ 
tance to farmers, we now copy Mr. Colman ; s remarks in full, 
from his own report in the Courier: 
_ 1. “Mr. Colman had not intended to enter upon this discus¬ 
sion, hut he felt it due to his official relation to the farmers of 
Massachusetts, to say that he had had the pleasure of seeing the 
improved Durham stock of the Messrs. Lathrops, of South Had¬ 
ley, and he thought them eminently beautiful, and evincing 
great skill and care in their management, on the part of those 
gentlemen. He had seen many of the imported animals through¬ 
out the country; and one of the herds imported for the Ohio 
Company, which he saw on their way, was truly splendid, and 
in beauty and perfection of form, far surpassed any thing which 
he had ever witnessed. 
2. “He must, however, in justice, add, that he yet wanted 
the proof of the Durham Short Horns being the best stock for 
our dairies. Seven of the race which he had owned, some full 
and others half-blood, had been inferior as milkers. The quan¬ 
tity of milk given by many of the animals which he had seen, 
was remarkable ; the quality, in general, inferior; though he 
hadfound some exceptions, which, he believed, were accidental. 
3. “ The Cheshire farmers, who were as distinguished as any 
in the country or in any country for the produce of their cheese 
dairies, preferred the native stock. From a dairy of eighteen 
cows, an average of 633 pounds new milk cheese to a cow, in a 
year, had been obtained. He had challenged in writing and 
conversation the owners of the Short Horns in the country to 
prove, by actual experiment, the dairy properties of this stock; 
and he would furnish a list of a hundred cows of our native 
stock, which had made from twelve to fourteen pounds of but¬ 
ter per week, through the season. He was far from having any 
prejudices against the Improved Durhams. He was an enthu¬ 
siastic admirer of them ; but he wanted their dairy properties 
tested by actual experiment. 
4. “ A very distinguished English farmer, Mr. Shirreff, who 
had made the tour of this country, expressed his regret at their 
introduction, and pronounced them in his book the poorest 
dairy stock in England. We could not be said to have formed 
any distinct race among ourselves, excepting the trials made 
by Mr. Jacques, and a long continued improvement carried on 
in reference to milch cows, in another part of the state, upon 
which he had reported. Much, undoubtedly, yet remains to be 
done, but nothing in this respect can be effected but by skill, 
extreme accuracy of observation, and long perseverance. 
5. “He thought the Durhams not well adapted to the scanty 
P astures and negligent habits of many of our farmers. All high 
red animals require particular care and the most liberal feed. 
Two of the finest oxen ever raised in the country were of this 
stock. One, it is believed, a full blood from Greenland, N. H., 
weighing over 3,400 pounds, live weight; and one and a half- 
blood, raised in Claremont, N. H., and sent year before last to 
England, for exhibition. His live weight was said to be 3,700 
pounds: and he was pronounced in England, by the best judges 
of stock, as unrivaled for weight and thrift, and eminently 
well formed. 
6. “ The best breeds would soon run out if negligently or se¬ 
verely treated. This race were undoubtedly well suited to the 
rich pastures and abundant products of the west of Kentucky 
and Ohio. There they would flourish. What might be done 
for our own stock by more liberal keeping, was yet to be seen. 
He had known a calf from a native cow, at four months old, to 
weigh nearly 400 pounds; and another, at five months old, to 
weigh 600 pounds. If the improved Durham stock should prove 
the best for us, and he kept his mind on this subject open to 
conviction, we could at once avail ourselvpsof the distinguish¬ 
ed improvements of half a century's skill and toil and expense, 
so liberally bestowed in England. At any rate, the improve¬ 
ments which they had accomplished in England, so obvious 
and impressive to the most careless observer, read a most im¬ 
portant lesson to us, and showed what might be done by skill 
and care, by judicious selection, by steady perseverance in a 
regular system, and by liberal keeping; and presented, at the 
same time, the most powerful motives to exertion and enter¬ 
prise in a branch of husbandry, acknowledged by all to be of 
the first importance.” 
Now, in reference to paragraph No. 1 of Mr. Colman, I 
have never seen the herd of Messrs. Lathrop, of South Had¬ 
ley; but if they are what Mr. C. represents, they must be 
beautiful and valuable animals, and a great acquisition to their 
neighborhood; although I exceedingly regret that he did not 
give the opinions of those gentlemen as to their value and ex¬ 
cellence in the Connecticut Valley, and the results of their ex¬ 
perience regarding them. A detail of their observations would 
have been at least more satisfactory than a summary con¬ 
demnation without a hearing. 
Mr. Colman and myself visited the Ohio Company’s herd, 
which he mentions, together in company at Buffalo in 1835, as 
they were passing through from the sea-board to Ohio, on their 
passage out. They were in high condition, as few or none 
of the cows were then in milk, and we had no opportunity to 
judge of their capabilities for the pail; although I have since 
learned that several of the cows were great and rich milkers. 
It must be understood, however, that many of the English 
breeders of high bred Short Horns breed only for sale ana the 
shambles, and do not cultivate the milking qualities of their 
cattle. This is almost universally the case in Ohio, Kentucky, 
and the Western States, where the dairy forms no part of the 
farming business, and stock is reared mostly for beef; but 
from the universal tendency of the true Short Horns to excel 
in milking properties, when appropriated to that purpose, I 
can have no doubt they would show as advantageously over 
the pail as in the stall. When it is considered also, that 
owing to their scarcity and high value in America, all the fe¬ 
males are employed in rearing their calves, and the bulls, in¬ 
stead of being converted into stores for the shambles, are pre¬ 
served as stock getters, it is evident that comparatively but 
few examples can be adduced of their real superiority over 
the common stock of our country as milkers. Still, a suffi¬ 
cient number of specimens have been shown, both in milk 
and beef, to demonstrate that in each of these qualities the 
improved Short Horns have excelled all that has yet been 
produced of our native American stock. 
In paragraph No. 2, Mr. C. remarks, that he wants proof of 
the milking qualities of the Short Horns. His own, seven in 
number, proved inferior milkers, although he admits that seve¬ 
ral of them, either of his own or which he had seen, were 
large milkers ; but he believes these, exceptions to the general 
rule. That his own cows proved bad milkers, proves nothing. 
What was their blood ? Were they of true and improved Short 
Horn descent ? No data is here given for us to judge of their 
properties in this particular, and we are forced to pass on to 
Paragraph No. 3. The Cheshire and many other dairy 
farmers have long had an excellent stock of selected native 
cows, which have been propagated with particular regard to 
their milking properties for many generations. Mr. Colman 
has traversed the whole State of Massachusetts several times, 
and out of the whole number of cows that he has seen among 
many thousands, he presents a list of one hundred of the na¬ 
tive stock which had made from twelve to fourteen pounds of 
butter per week. He has also challenged, both in writing 
and conversation, the owners of Short Horns to prove their 
dairy qualities. 
I doubt whether one hundred thorough bred Short Horn 
cows can be conveniently produced at all in the whole States 
of New-York and Massachusetts, so few are there in compa¬ 
rison with the common stock of the country. Nor do I be¬ 
lieve five times that number of grade cows of half blood and 
upwards, can be easily found in either State; but I will venture 
the assertion, that where such cattle do exist, no matter what 
their parentage may be on the native side, if they were direct¬ 
ly bred from improved Short Horn bulls, four out of every five 
of them have proved superior milkers; and at least twenty 
per cent better in the aggregate than the ordinary cows around 
them. And I will also assert, that of the whole number of 
thorough bred cows in our country, nine out of ten are excel¬ 
lent, if not superior milkers, and twenty-five per cent above 
the average native cows. To illustrate this matter, as I have 
bred a large number of improved Herd Book animals of the 
highest blood, within the last six years, as well as many grade 
cattle from the native, Devon, and other breeds, I will state 
the results of my own experience, and also the opinions of 
sundry other breeders, with such facts as a hasty reference 
will permit. 
In 1835, I bred ten or twelve half-blood heifers from three 
Devon, and several common cows of inferior quality and ap¬ 
pearance. They were sired by my Short Horn bull Favorite, 
bred near Boston, Mass., whose pedigree will be found at 
No. 2,009,3d vol. Coate’s Herd Book. These heifers proved, 
without an exception, good milkers; much above the average, 
both for quality and quantity. In 1836,7 and 8, I bred several 
one-half and three-fourth blood heifers, also from Devons and 
others, which, although many of them were sold, have, so far 
as I have heard from them, proved superior milkers. A part 
of these were sired by my Short Horn bull Devonshire, No. 
966, 2d vol. Coate’s Herd Book. I also had, during the years 
from 1834 to near the close of 1839, a herd of full bred im¬ 
proved Short Horns, varying from four to ten milking cows, 
of which all, with one exception, (and that cow suffered an 
injury in her udder when young,) were first rale milkers. 
One cow gave often thirty quarts of milk per day of good 
quality. Several of them gave over twenty quarts daily in 
summer feed, and not one of them gave poor milk, or, as the 
term is, milked hard. They were individually easy, pleasant 
milkers, with beautiful silky udders, and handsome taper 
teats, and were, taken together, much beyond the average 
run of native cows as milkers. I have now a Durham cow 
that has made her twelve pounds of butter per week, and of 
four full-bloods now in milk, every one is a superior milker. 
I have also five or six half-bloods, all of which are above the 
average of our native cows, by twenty per cent in their milk¬ 
ing properties. 
To corroborate my experience, I need only mention the 
evidence of such gentlemen as John Hare Powell, of Phila¬ 
delphia, who asserted to my father, that one of his full-blooded 
Short Horn cows had made twenty-two pounds of butter per 
week for several weeks in succession; Ggv. Lincoln, and 
Messrs. Wells, Derby, and Dearborn, of Massachusetts, who 
have been the owners of several grade and thorough bred 
cows; Francis Rotch, Esq. of Butternuts, in this State, who 
has repeatedly testified jo the superiority of his Short Horns as 
milkers, and to his entire experience, probably equal, if not 
superior, to that of any other gentleman in America, of the 
superiority of the Short Horns in their purity and in their grades, 
as milkers. I need not add the names of many other individuals 
who have repeatedly testified to these facts, as a reference to 
our agricultural papers for the last five years will corroborate 
all that I remark. And last of all, I will assert that Colonel 
Jacques’ fancifully ycleped “ Creampot” breed of milkers, and 
which I saw in company with Mr. Colman himself, are sim¬ 
ply a cross of a thorough bred Short Horn bull with a native 
cow, then at Col. Jacques’ farm, of good size and appearance, 
of a deep red color, and with an apparent dash of Devon 
blood in her veins. His bull that he then used was nearly or 
quite a thorough bred Short Horn, and all his heifers were 
high in that blood. This same stock of cattle, Mr. C. has 
himself highly recommended in one of his agricultural reports, 
and we were together living witnesses of the surpassing rich¬ 
ness of the milk and cream of these beautiful cows. With a 
tew selected facts, I will close this testimony: 
In 3d vol. Cultivator, page 191. Francis Bloodgood’s im¬ 
ported cow (she was a Durham) gave, when her calf was 
two weeks old, thirty-three and a half quarts of milk per day. 
Her feed was one and a half bushels of brewer’s grains per 
day, with hay. 
In vol. 7, same work, page 132. Mr. Gower’s Short Horn 
cow Dairymaid, for seven days gave an average of thirty- 
three and a half quarts per day. 
In New Genesee Farmer, vol. 1, page 143. Samuel Canby’s 
Short Horn cow, Blossom, yielded for seven days over thirty- 
five quarts per day, which produced thirteen and a quarter 
pounds good butter. 
At page 149, same vol. John Weterhull’s Short Horn 
cow, four years old, gave from twenty-six to thirty and a half 
quarts of milk per day, and in one week produced eleven and 
a half pounds butter, and in another week fifteen pounds. 
In a Philadelphia paper of 1839. “ Col. Wolbert’s cow Isa¬ 
bella, a pure Short Horn, gave, during seven days, 194 quarts, 
or near twenty-eight quarts per day, which produced fourteen 
and three-fourths pounds butter of the finest quality.” So 
much for the assertion that “Durham cows are not good 
milkers.” 
In paragraph 4, Mr. Colman introduces us to the distin¬ 
guished English farmer, Mr. Shirreff who has made the tour 
of this country. If this same Mr. Shirreff who by the way I 
never heard of before, be as profound in his remarks upon our 
country, its inhabitants and their pursuits, as the herd of Eng¬ 
lish travelers who have hitherto trundled rapidly over it for 
the purpose, as it would seem, of writing libelous books and 
holding us up to the ridicule of Englishmen at home, his opi¬ 
nion is little to be regarded. His knowledge of the progress 
of Short Horns in his own country may be well estimated, 
when he remarks “that they are the poorest dairy stock in 
England.” To this remark I need only observe, that nine 
out of ten of the intelligent English farmers who emigrate to 
this country, and all British publications on the subject, assert 
precisely the contrary; for the high grade, and often the 
thorough bred Short Horns, have been for many years past 
taking the place of other breeds for dairy and milking pur¬ 
poses in the grazing counties, and near the large towns and 
cities. That he should regret the introduction of any thing 
tending to advance our agriculture, and our wealth, is altoge¬ 
ther natural in an English book-making tourist. I am only 
surprised that a gentleman of Mr. Colman’s shrewdness 
should be thus easily deceived. As to the ‘•'■distinct race of 
American cattle” to be yet formed, the end of all this is to be 
seen in the continual efforts at blending incongruities by those 
experimenters who strive, without an accurate knowledge of 
their subject, to produce what is already better made up to 
their hands in the improved breeds now extant. Such expe¬ 
riments, as they live and learn, have been always abandoned 
as impracticable and visionary. There is, nor can be, no 
such thing as a “distinct American breed,” made up as all 
our cattle are from selections from all parts of Europe; nor, if 
our agriculture is to be, as we hope, progressive in its excel¬ 
lence, is it desirable. Our cattle should improve with our gene¬ 
ral agriculture. The last sentence of Mr. C.’s remark is very 
just, and concedes, as we view it, the gist of what we com- 
mend. 
In paragraph 5, Mr. C. gives us the only good reason why 
Durhams should not become the stock of New-England, to 
wit: the poverty of its soil, and the negligence of many of the 
people ! Truly a very broad admission, hardly just, indeed, to 
the snug farmers of New-England, and not at all within the 
the desideratum for which the advocates of Short Horns con¬ 
tend :—improved husbandry, improved care, and improved 
stock. If upon lands, a thousand acres of which will scarce¬ 
ly graze a goose, and from which the very vermin instinctive¬ 
ly flee to escape starvation, the beautiful Short Horns are to 
be doomed to pine, without care, and without sympathy, I at 
once admit that the less of them the better. Nor do the mise¬ 
rable animals of the native breeds even, which are doomed to 
a wretched existence on those “scanty pastures,” exhibit any 
signs of thrift as they daily suffer from the “negligent habits 
of their keepers.” True, a long course of neglect and starva¬ 
tion endured by their ancestors, and perpetuated for many 
generations anterior to their own existence, may render their 
wretchedness more tolerable than it would that of a better 
animal; but what advocate of any sort of improvement is con¬ 
tent to bind himself to such hopeless sterility ? Did we desire 
a race of animals that would starve the best, we could at once 
make an importation from the Shetland Islands, and establish 
a <S7ietZo-“American breed” that would bid defiance to neglect 
and poverty, and flourish amid both frost and desolation! 
But this proposition is not within the category of our sys¬ 
tem. We hold, that if land be worth cultivation at all, it 
should be at least in a reasonable state of fertility. It should 
yield in any event a tolerable share of its various products un¬ 
der good and kindly attention with which to feed well the 
stock of the farm. If cows are not to be decently fed, by no 
means keep the Durhams, or any other valuable breed. But 
if it be intended to give “ value received,” to feed well, and 
pay attention to your stock, and there is no other way to make 
any kind of stock profitable, then let the breed be as good as 
possible, and of as high a grade in blood as the nature of your 
soil and the climate will permit. The admissions made before 
the close of this paragraph, of the enormous weights of the 
Durham ox with good keeping, admit to the fullest extent all 
that we claim, when abundance of feed is given to the animal. 
In tiie 6th and last paragrapn, Mr. C. doubts whether the 
Durhams are, after all, not the best stock for us to have, and 
candidly admits that his mind is yet open to conviction. Now 
this, after making the round assertions and denials that are 
above exhibited, is not exactly what we should expect from 
one of his observation and astuteness. It is indeed too much 
in the vein of the old adage; “ Hang him first, and try him after¬ 
wards.” In this last paragraph, all is admitted that the advo¬ 
cates of the Short Horns desire. We have never asserted 
that they would produce great quantities of beef, or of milk, 
without sufficient food ; nor would they thrive under continu¬ 
al ill treatment, neglect and abuse; nor, indeed, will they bear 
so much starvation and ill treatment as some of our native 
cattle; but we do fearlessly assert that either thorough bred or 
grade_ Short Horns will produce more beef, and more milk, 
each in their own proper time, with the same quantities of 
grass, hay, or other proper feed, than any breed of cattle ever 
introduced into this country; and so have they thus far done 
in England. 
My own cattle have never been highly kept. On the con- 
