How to Select Cows / or, The Guenon system simplified, explained, and practically applied

by Willis P. Hazard

Imperfections and Tufts.

Variations would arise, from crossing two animals with different escutcheons, from some defect in marking at the birth, from lack of development, or from those freaks that nature sometimes plays. They always prove stumbling-blocks in forming the judgment on some animals, and furnish texts to the opponents of the system.

As Guenon continued his examinations, he found that his classes did not afford a place for all animals, or rather that there were occasionally to be found cows whose escutcheons while apparently belonging to one of these classes, had at the same time, certain distinguished features which he styled imperfect escutcheons. These Mr. Hazard, the secretary of the commission, described as follows:

“The perfect escutcheon of each Class is the one which is in Order No. 1. All variations from this are rated lower in the scale; these variations may consist of a smaller size, therefore, the escutcheon would not be so broad or high upon the thighs, nor so broad upon the vertical portion; they may consist of the lack of ovals, which would place them below the first order; they may consist of blemishes, which are tufts of hair growing alongside of the vulva, or below it; or they may consist of strongly marked imperfections, which may be cuts or slices taken out of the escutcheon; or, coarse, harsh, wiry hair on the back and upper part of the udder. Finally, they may be so decided as to place the animal among the bastards.”

Of the tufts, Guenon says all tufts encroaching on the escutcheon diminish its value, except the oval ones on the udder; that is to say, they indicate a diminished aptitude for yielding milk. The size and location of these tufts make the animals descend one or more orders in the classification. It is, therefore, important to attend to all the patches of descending hairs which lessen the size of the escutcheon, whether these occur in the middle of it or form indentations on the sides. These indentations, partly concealed by the folds of the skin, are sometimes perceived with difficulty. Many cows, which at first glance appear to be well-marked, on close examination display their deficiencies, and want of this scrutiny often causes mistakes in estimating the value of cows, and thus the system suffers.

Guenon says the cause of the defects, as exhibited by the tufts on the thighs, is that the veins situated beneath, on either side of the belly, have a peculiarity; that they are contracted, and there is a small opening for it where it pierces the abdominal muscles.

Sometimes there is an intermingling of two forms of escutcheons. This depends upon the crossing between a cow of one class and a bull of another. This is one of the difficulties to be encountered in precisely estimating the value of the animal.

Guenon classified the seven tufts, into two kinds: Those on which the hair ascends, and those on which it descends. Those with ascending hairs are simply traces which encroach on the descending hair outside the escutcheon, either on one side or beneath the vulva. Those with the descending hair are on the escutcheon, and are five in number.

1. Epi ovale, oval tuft. These are situated on the udder, like those on class one, two, three, four, order first. They are good signs, if of descending fine hair, small, and regular. They are mostly seen on only the best cows, though occasionally to be met with in some of the lower orders.

2. Epi fessard, ischiatic tuft. These are found on the vertical escutcheon on one or both sides of the vulva, as in class four, five, orders two, three, four; and very conspicuously in the bastards of class three, four, five, six. They are of ascending hair, and never seen in first class cows, but in most others to a limited extent.

3. Epi babin, lip-shaped tuft. This is only seen as a sign of deterioration in the two first classes; it is made by descending hairs, and is a defect for milking qualities. It is like a string hanging over the top of the vulva, and making its outline a little below it on each side. It is seldom seen.

4. Epi vulvé, vulvan tuft. This is also a deteriorating sign; is a tuft of descending hair directly under the vulva, as in class one, orders three and four.

5. Epi batard, perinæal tuft. This is always a bad mark, as it exists on otherwise good marked cows, and indicates a diminution of milk, as soon as the cow becomes pregnant. It is seen on class one, bastard. A cow is to be looked upon with suspicion that has this mark largely developed.

6. Epi cuissard, thigh tufts. These are diminutions of the escutcheon by encroachment of descending hair, and denote a diminishing of the quantity of milk, proportionate to their extent. See class one and two, order four.

7. Epi jonctif, mesian tuft. The mesian or dart-like tuft, with soft silky ascending hair, is rarely seen, and only in those classes in which the escutcheon does not ascend to the vulva. It is like a V hanging beneath the vulva, and is not fully represented in the plates, though class ten, order two, shows it somewhat.

In these observations among cows, not only during their work as members of the commission, but also in preceding examinations, Messrs. Blight, Harvey, and Hazard noticed a series of marks, which they have denominated thigh ovals. The plate showing the escutcheon of Mr. Hazard’s Jersey cow furnishes one of the best illustration of these marks yet met with by the commission. Where the vertical escutcheon joins and widens out into the thigh escutcheon, there is usually a dip of a curved shape more or less in extent. In the plate above alluded to these thigh ovals descend nearly to the base of the udder. In their careful examination of more than two hundred cows, the commission always found these marks only on good cows.

In his examinations Guenon found cows of apparently each class with certain variations in their markings which distinguished them and prevented their incorporation into any class, and, yet the similarity gives them a claim in their particular class. In all cases he claims to have noted that cows thus marked would milk as well as other members of their class, until they were got with calf, but as soon as this was accomplished, the quantity of milk fell off rapidly. The commission claim it is this style of marking which is most likely to deceive the superficial or amateur investigators, and that these have caused the assertion that a poor cow may be well marked, when in reality, if properly understood, she was not well marked. This class of cows Guenon styled Bastards, and he practically assigned to them a distinctive or seventh order in each class.

In 1822, Guenon seems to have first reduced his system to a classified basis, and from that time until 1828 he appears to have given it much of his time and attention. Having, as he deemed, sufficiently arranged and tested his system, he, in 1828, applied to the academy of Bordeaux for a public test of the correctness of his mode of judging of cows and their milking value.

Escutcheon of ROSIE.

Thorough-bred Jersey Cow, belonging to Willis P. Hazard.

The following, from the proceedings of the academy, shows that Guenon did not make his system common property. The minutes of the academy, under date of June 3, 1828, contains the following record: “Mr. Francis Guenon, of Libourne, possessor of a method which he deems infallible for judging, by mere visual examination, of the goodness of milch cows, and the quantity of milk which each can yield, has solicited the Academy to cause the efficaciousness of this method to be tested by repeated experiments. The case presented by this request was one of a secret method of judging, which the possessor was not willing to reveal. On the other hand, it seemed difficult to admit that the external sign, whatever it might be, by which Mr. Guenon judges, could always bear a proportional relation to the quantity of milk yielded by a cow. Nevertheless, the academy deemed it proper to appoint a committee charged with making the examination. Trials have been made with care, and under precautions necessary for precluding all collusion. The cows used for the purpose belonged to three different herds, and amounted to thirty in number, and the result has been to establish, to the satisfaction of the committee, that Mr. Guenon really possesses great sagacity in this line. So long, however, as his method shall be kept secret, it cannot be judged of, nor rewarded by, the academy. Governed by these considerations, the academy, having ascertained from Mr. Guenon that he is willing to submit to every test that may be proposed, and to disclose his secret, upon receiving a just indemnity, has referred him to the prefect, and has engaged to recommend him to the favorable notice of that magistrate, who is ever disposed to promote all that tends to improve it.”

From 1822 to 1827, it would seem that Guenon perfected and studied his system, but it does not seem to have come promptly before the public, until the agricultural society of Bordeaux took upon itself a careful investigation of the whole system. From the detailed report of this committee, appointed by this society to test the knowledge of Guenon, we take the following as illustrating, not only the results reached by them, but also the manner of conducting the examination:

“Every cow subjected to examination was separated from the rest. What Mr. Guenon had to say in regard to her was taken down in writing by one of the committee; and immediately after, the proprietor, who had kept at a distance, was interrogated, and such questions put to him as would tend to confirm or disprove the judgment pronounced by Mr. Guenon. In this way we have examined, in a most careful manner—note being taken of every fact and every observation made by any one present—upward of sixty cows and heifers, and we are bound to declare that every statement made by Mr. Guenon, with respect to each of them, whether it regarded the quantity of milk, or the time during which the cow continued to give milk after being got with calf, or finally, the quality of the milk as being more or less creamy or serous, were confirmed, and its accuracy established. The only discrepancies which occurred, were some slight differences in regard to the quantity of milk, but these we afterward fully satisfied ourselves were caused entirely by the food of the animal being more or less abundant.

“The result of this first test seems conclusive, but they acquire new force from those of a second trial in which the method was subjected to another test through M. Guenon and his brother. Your committee, availing themselves of the presence of the latter, caused the same cows to be examined by the two brothers, but separately, so that after a cow had been inspected, and her qualities as indicated by the signs in question had been pronounced upon by one of the brothers, he was made to withdraw; then the other brother, who had been kept aloof, was called up, and desired to state the qualities of the same animal. This mode of proceeding could not fail to give rise to difference, to contradiction even, between the judgments of the two brothers, unless their method was a positive and sure one. Well, gentlemen, we must say it, this last test was absolutely decisive. Not only did the judgment of the two brothers accord perfectly together, but they were in perfect accordance also with all that was said by the proprietors in regard to the qualities, good or bad, of every animal subject to this examination.”

On the 26th of May, 1837, a similar test was made by the agricultural society of Aurillac, whose committee, in their report, use the following language:

“Each cow was examined separately by M. Guenon, who wrote his notes upon her, and delivered the paper closed to one of us. Immediately after, another member of the committee questioned the owner of the cow, or the person in charge of her, in regard to her daily yield of milk, its quality, and the time during which she continued to give milk after being got with calf. The answers were taken down in writing, and then compared with the notes written by M. Guenon. They were generally found to accord, and proved to the satisfaction of your committee and of every one present, all of whom attended with lively interest to these proceedings, that M. Guenon possesses great sagacity in judging of cattle, and that his method rests upon a sure foundation.”

The Bordeaux committee added: “To the proprietors and to the lookers-on, all this was very surprising for the examinations were as quickly made as the results were certain. As to ourselves to whom the method was no longer a secret, it was with renewed interest and astonishment that we viewed the accuracy of the results. This system we do not fear to say is infallible. We only regretted the whole society was not present.”

The committee further reported that Mr. Guenon had, after more than twenty years observations and researches, discovered certain natural and positive signs that were proof against all error, while the writers and professors who have particularly occupied themselves with the bovine race, can only indicate some vague signs for judging of the fitness of cows for secreting milk. That this method is valuable, whether it tells the yield of milk only, or indicates the improvement of breeds, which are liable to deterioration from mismanagement in crossing, and that it is applicable not to full-grown animals alone, but also to calves at as early an age as three months. Thus it affords a sure means of forming a judgment of full-grown animals, about which we might be misled on account of their form and their parentage, and secures the improvement of herds by enabling us to dispose of those calves which will not repay the cost of rearing them. We shall thus no longer rear calves at great expense for two or three years that should have been consigned to the butcher, nor sell calves that would pay best to rear. If this system is pursued, only cows and bulls of best quality will be kept, and in very few years how great will be the improvement of our herds, and largely increased the cheapest and best of all foods, milk, and the production of butter and cheese.

The committee of the Agricultural Society of Bordeaux, therefore, decreed Mr. Guenon a gold medal, made him a member of the society, ordered fifty copies of his work, and distributed one thousand copies of their full report among all the agricultural societies of France.

The next public test Mr. Guenon submitted his system to, was that by the Agricultural Society of Aurillac, and that society reported that Mr. Guenon examined the herd of their president, of one hundred cows, from which were selected designedly, the best, the moderately good, and the most indifferent of the establishment. Upon each, Mr. Guenon pronounced with precision, and his decisions corresponded almost invariably with the statements of the persons in charge. The only variations were very slight ones, in regard to the quantity given. But this herd was fed unusually high, and Guenon was totally unaccustomed to the usages of the country in feeding cattle, and this caused him to pronounce the yield a little less than it really was. A proof of his system, for he declares the yield will vary according to the feed and management, which all observant farmers know to be the case. Mr. Guenon examined some of the cows a second time, and also the calves, and those calves he assigned to the first orders the cowherds said were from their best cows, that gave a great deal of milk.

The notes of his reëxaminations corresponded exactly with his first statements. The committee therefore awarded Mr. Guenon a gold medal, made him a corresponding member, subscribed for twenty-five copies of his book for each of the sub-societies, and distributed their report through all the agricultural channels of France.

With these testimonials, the highest that could be procured in France, Mr. Guenon went on with the publication of his book, which had a wide circulation in every department of France. And he was finally granted a pension for life of three thousand francs a year by the French government, after the National Assembly’s committee on agriculture had given the system a thorough test. In the presence of fifty of the most eminent agriculturists, M. Guenon made his examinations, and judged correctly of all but one of the quantity, of all but one of the time, and of all of the quality; and the committee reported the results were altogether conclusive, and that his discovery had reached to the dignity of a science. They also declared the daily production of milk in France might be increased by several millions of pints daily, and that the abundance and quality of milk in the dams must contribute largely to the improvement of the progeny. They voted him the pension, and invited him to deliver lectures in the different veterinary, agricultural, and normal schools of the kingdom, and before the different agricultural societies, as “the speediest and best means of spreading the knowledge of this discovery,” and “to repair the time lost in ridicule, doubt, or indifference—the inevitable preface to all under-takings beneficial to humanity.”

In the foregoing account of Mr. Francis Guenon, it will be seen that, by his indomitable perseverance in perfecting his system or method, he raised himself from the ranks of a poor gardener’s boy to the position of a great benefactor, and was presented with various medals and decorations, and a large sum of money voted to him. Surely, such a brilliant position must have been won entirely by merit, for he had neither means nor influence to advance him into notice.