Opinions of the System.

A writer in the Country Gentleman of July 17, 1879, S. Hoxie, of Whitestown, New York, so thoroughly expresses our experience and convictions, that we are led to quote it:

“The writer has been acquainted with ‘the escutcheon theory’ ever since about 1850. During this time he has been a practical dairyman in central New York. At first he approached the study of the escutcheon as a doubter. It seemed to him an absolute absurdity to claim a connection between the growing of the hair and the production of milk, two functions so entirely different.

“At first he examined the herd of cows which he helped milk every night and morning, and was surprised to meet with so many proofs of the truth of the theory. He then observed it upon other herds, and finally extended his observations to various breeds under various circumstances. He was at last compelled to come to the final conclusion that the theory, in the main, was true, but that other points and conditions of the animal must be understood in order invariably to reach a correct judgment:

“1. The breed modifies the quantity and quality of milk production. This is so manifestly true that it needs no argument. A particular order and class of escutcheon indicates a different quantity and a different quality of milk on a Jersey than it indicates on an Ayrshire cow.

“2. The condition of care and feed to which different families of the same breed have been accustomed during long periods modify milk production, and must be taken into consideration. For instance, certain families of Short-Horns have been cared for and fed through several generations with the sole view of beef production; other families have been trained to milk production. Escutcheons upon the former indicate far less quantity of milk than upon the latter. Thus some families with very fine escutcheons give very little milk. The escutcheons in such cases no doubt indicate an original capacity that a few generations of proper treatment might awaken and develop.

“3. The capacity and health of the digestive organs modifies the quantity, and we also think the quality, of milk production. Cows with large, healthy digestive organs will eat and properly digest more food, and give good return at the pail, than one with opposite conditions of the digestive organs. The former may sometimes give the larger quantity of milk, though, indeed, possessed of the poorer escutcheon.

“4. The activity of the nervous system materially affects milk production. This is often seen when the animal is unduly excited. The quiet dispositioned cow that attends to feeding, and is not disturbed by any excitement in the herd or in the surrounding fields, may have the poorer escutcheon, yet give larger quantities of milk than the extremely excitable cow, with the better escutcheon.

“Other conditions will suggest themselves to the observing and reflecting man, that materially affect the quantity and quality of milk production.

“These modifying conditions do not disturb the true theory of the escutcheon. Other things being equal, the escutcheon is indicative of the quantity and quality of milk. Many are misled in estimating the value of the escutcheon, because they have not the patience or the capacity to observe the varying conditions. The escutcheon is of immense practical value. It is easily seen the conditions of flesh do not change it, and animals of all ages, above three months, may be examined by it, and their milking qualities determined with a good degree of accuracy. Other things being equal, the animal with the better escutcheon will invariably make the butter maker. During nearly thirty years of observation, the writer never observed a first class cow that had a poor escutcheon. The escutcheon must be of great value to those who are breeding, and endeavouring to improve thorough-bred cattle of the various milking breeds. It offers a test that may be applied before milking age, and it may be applied to males as well as females. Though the pedigree is ever so long, and though it contains many good ancestors, the animal should be rejected from the breeding herd, unless it has a good escutcheon.”

“One of the Farmers,” a regular correspondent of the American Agriculturist, writes in the number for November, 1878:

“The Value of the Guenon Milk Mirror.—Taken with a good udder and milk-veins, good digestive functions, and capacity for food, good health and thrift, the Guenon milk mirror is a valuable indication of both the quantity and duration of the flow of milk. This seems to be demonstrated by the experience of thousands who have given the subject careful study, and I have never yet met the man who ridiculed it, and called it “folly,” who was able intelligently even to outline the prominent types. The number of calves which do well or ill as milkers, very nearly as indicated by their milk mirrors, is so large, that one of the principal practical uses to which a knowledge of the Guenon system can be applied is in selecting calves to raise, and, of course, to those who buy cows, it comes equally well in use.”

The American Association of Breeders of Dutch Friesian Cattle, composed of some of the most practical and intelligent farmers of the dairy region of central New York, have adopted a new set of rules for entry into registry in their Herd Book, wisely making the performance at the pail one of the necessary requirements. Thus, for a period of not more than twelve months from date of calving, the cow under 2½ years of age must give 6,000 lbs. of milk; over 2½, and under 3½, 7,000 lbs; over 3½, and under 4½, 8,000 lbs; over 4½, 9,000 lbs; also, rule 8: No animal shall be admitted to registry unless of the “milk form,” or of the “combined milk and beef form,” of medium or of large size, without coarseness, and if a female, having a well developed escutcheon, not below the 4th order of the 1st class, the 3d orders of the 2d, 3d 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th classes, the 2d order of the 9th class, or the 1st order of the 10th class of the Pennsylvania Commission. With such a record, and with such marks, no one need take the trouble to see the stock, but may safely order it, knowing exactly what they are to receive.

George E. Waring, junior, says:

“If the escutcheon teaches anything it teaches the duration of the flow of milk. This is its great value in connection with the Jerseys—a race of small, rich, and persistent milkers. It does indicate quantity, it is true, but not Dutch quantity, nor Ayrshire quantity; only Jersey quantity, which is quite another affair. It indicates, in at least equal degree, the continuance of the flow of milk. Indeed, this is the great value of Guenon’s discovery. It is easy to judge of the present flow of milk in the case of any given cow, but, so far as I know, there is nothing but the escutcheon to tell us how long she will continue to milk after getting with calf. If she has a first class escutcheon, I think we are safe in believing that she will hold out well in her milking. If she has a very defective escutcheon, we may depend on her to fall away very rapidly when a few months gone, and to shut down entirely three or four months before calving.”

From an exhaustive and admirable treatise on the Ayrshire breed, by John D. W. French, of North Andover, Mass., we make the following extracts from his remarks on the Guenon system:

“Pabst, a German farmer of large experience, with a view to simplify the method of Guenon, and render it of greater practical value, made five divisions, or classes:—

“Magne, the French writer, made a still further simplification, by making four classes instead of five:—

“In the first class he places cows, both parts of whose milk-mirror, the mammary and the perinean, are large, continuous, uniform, covering at least a great part of the perineum, the udder, the inner surface of the thighs, and extending more or less out upon the legs with no interruptions, or, if any, small ones, oval in form, and situated on the posterior face of the udder. Cows of this class are very rare. They give, even when small in size, from ten to fourteen quarts per day, and the largest size from eighteen to twenty-six quarts a day, and even more. They continue in milk for a long period.

“The second class is that of good cows, and to this belong the best commonly found in the market. They have the mammary part of the milk-mirror well developed, but the perinean part contracted or wholly wanting. Small cows of this class give from seven to ten or eleven quarts a day, and the largest from thirteen to seventeen quarts.

“The third class consists of middling cows. When the milk-mirror really presents only the lower or mammary part slightly developed or indented, and the perinean part contracted, narrow, and irregular, the cows are middling. Cows of this class, according to size, give from three or four to ten quarts per day.

“The fourth class is composed of bad cows. No veins are to be seen either on the perineum or the udder, while those of the belly are very slightly developed, and the mirrors are ordinarily small. These cows give only a few quarts of milk a day, and dry up a short time after calving.

“Mr. C. L. Flint, in his work on ‘Milch Cows,’ says:—

“These classifications, adopted by Pabst, Magne, and others, appear to be far more simple and satisfactory than the more complicated classification of Guenon. Without pretending to judge with accuracy of the quantity, the quality, or the duration which a particular size or form of the mirror will indicate, they give to Guenon the full credit of his important discovery, as a new and valuable element in forming our judgment of the milking qualities of a cow, and simply assert, with respect to the duration of the flow of milk, that the mirror that indicates the greatest quantity will also indicate the longest duration.

“My own attention was called to Guenon’s method of judging cows some eight or ten years ago, and since that time I have examined many hundreds, with a view to ascertain the correctness of its main features, inquiring, at the same time, after the views and opinions of the best breeders and judges of stock, with regard to their experience and judgment of its merits; and the result of my observations has been that cows with the most perfectly developed milk-mirrors or escutcheons are, with rare exceptions, the best milkers of their breed, and that cows with small and slightly developed mirrors are, in the majority of cases, bad milkers.

“I say the best milkers of their breed, for I do not believe that precisely the same sized and formed milk-mirrors on a Hereford, or a Devon and an Ayrshire, or a native, will indicate anything like the same or equal milking properties. It will not do, in my opinion, to disregard the general and well-known characteristics of the breed, and rely wholly on the milk-mirror; but I think it may be safely said that, as a general rule, the best marked Hereford will turn out to be the best milker among the Herefords, all of which are poor milkers; the best marked Devon, the best among the Devons; and the best marked Ayrshire, the best among the Ayrshires; that is, it will not do to compare two animals of entirely distinct breeds by the milk-mirrors alone, without regard to the fixed habits and education, so to speak, of the breed or family to which they belong.”

“In my own herd of Ayrshire cows, the largest milkers have the best escutcheons, and these cows have, in most cases, transmitted these marks to their descendants. On the other hand, the cows with medium or poor escutcheons have rarely transmitted to their calves better ones; but, generally, of the same or lower class than the dams.

“Bulls.—Guenon’s second and hardly less important discovery was that the bull had the same marks as the cow, only somewhat shorter and narrower. Guenon bestows upon these marks the same name, ‘milk-mirror,’ which may be justified, in as far as the bull has greater influence upon the sustaining or obtaining of an abundant yield of milk, as well as the improvement of the breed.

“Some Testimony.—Mr. L. A. Hansen, of Bay St. Louis, writes, in a letter to the Country Gentleman:

“I served my apprenticeship for three years on a dairy farm with two hundred cows, performing all the labor appertaining to a farm, the same as one of the hired men. After this, for twenty years, I had dairies of from eighty to one hundred and seventy cows. Living in the best dairy country then known, and our butter commanding the very highest market prices in London, England, (taking the premium at a butter exhibition in London,) we considered it the best policy to buy our cows instead of raising them, and I consequently had to purchase from twenty to thirty cows every year. Having adopted the Guenon system as a helping guide in my purchases, I necessarily examined more than a hundred cows annually, besides having under daily observation my own cows and those of the neighboring dairy farms. Thus, I had continual practice through a number of years. The classifications of the professor, mentioned in my former article, were, with very rare exceptions, right. In the first two classes, they did not fail once; in the lower classes, more frequently; but as the lower classes, with their sub-division, are of no importance to the dairyman—only the two first being fit for a dairy—the study of them becomes unnecessary, and it is of little avail if they are minutely correct.

“As nothing in this world is perfect, we cannot reasonably expect the Guenon system to be without defects; but, as already stated above, the imperfection is to be looked for in that part which is immaterial for practical application. Under all circumstances, as far as my experience goes, the Guenon theory will always remain a valuable guide in selecting milk cows.”

“Mr. L. S. Hardin writes, in a prize essay:

“Very few, if any, modern writers upon cattle have accepted the complicated theory of Guenon, while no two of them agree as to the extent in value of the escutcheon. As a point of beauty, it should certainly be cultivated in the herd. As to its practical value for indicating the milking qualities of the cow, my experience is that a finely-developed escutcheon is rarely seen on a poor milker, while many excellent milkers have very small or no escutcheons at all. In other words, its presence is a good sign, while its absence is not necessarily a cause for distrust. Milk-veins, as an indication for milking capacity, are of about the same value as the escutcheon.”

“The editor of the Jersey Bulletin, in commenting on this, says:

“We should be very glad to know of a cow, worthy to be called an ‘excellent milker’—duration of the flow after becoming pregnant being one of the tests—which has no escutcheon at all, or a very small one. As at present advised, we don’t believe she exists. Most old cow men would say that, if the escutcheon is as valuable an indication as the milk-veins, too much effort can hardly be made to extend knowledge concerning it.”

“Henry Tanner, professor of agriculture, Queen’s College, Birmingham, England, says, in a volume of prize essays of the Highland and Agricultural Society:

“Some attention has also been given, within a few years, to a discovery, made by Mons. Guenon, respecting ‘the escutcheon,’ as it is termed. Like many other persons, he was carried beyond the boundary of discretion in his speculations, and thus his valuable observations were for a time lost in the mist with which he enveloped them. Sufficient is already known of its value, at least, to lead us to the conclusion that it is worthy of more general knowledge.

“A very extended observation has proved that, other conditions being equal, the modification of form presented by the escutcheon will lead to an estimation, not only of the quantity of milk which the animal will produce, but also of the time during which the cow will keep up the supply of milk.

“Without going into detail upon this point, I may briefly state that the larger the extent of the escutcheon, the greater is the promise of milk, and also of its continuance, even after the cow is again in calf. A cow may have a small escutcheon, and yet be a good milker; but observation leads to the conclusion that, if she possessed a more fully developed escutcheon, she would have been a better milker. It may be considered a point of merit, not as deciding whether or not the cow is a good milker, but rather as an additional indication which may be taken into consideration in conjunction with other characteristic points. It is also desirable, in estimating the extent of the escutcheon, to make full allowance for the folds in the skin; otherwise, a large escutcheon may be taken for a small one. Besides the escutcheon, there are tufts of hair (epis) which have a certain degree of value when seen upon the udder of the cow.”

“I presume there are many men who, although perhaps not caring a pin for an escutcheon, yet consider themselves fully capable of selecting a good milk cow. Now, although ignoring the escutcheon in their judgment, are they not apt, in selecting an ideal cow of any particular milk breed, to find a good escutcheon developed of one class or another?

“Perhaps it may be asked, if the Guenon system is a true one, why are not the Short-Horns a great milk breed, for in them we often find very large and perfect escutcheons?

“This question may be answered as follows: The Short-Horns were originally a good milking breed; but, having been made particularly a beef breed, the milking propensity or mammary system has in most families been changed or bred out. Notwithstanding this change, they may retain the escutcheon, not as a mark of quality, but as one of the characteristic marks of the breed.

“All farmers are aware that a first-class milk cow may, by injudicious feed and treatment, especially as regards milking, become a second-class animal. Now, such a system, carried out generation after generation, must certainly degenerate a milk breed, however good their marks and quality.

“Among the Short-Horns, probably the best milkers have good escutcheons; but an Ayrshire cow, with an inferior escutcheon, might be found to give more milk than a Short-Horn with a superior escutcheon, simply because one breed has been bred especially for beef, the other especially for milk.

“To show how breeding for a purpose through many generations may ultimately change qualities, let us compare the Short-Horns with the Dutch or Holsteins. The early Short-Horns, or the Teeswater breed, as it was called, was of Dutch origin, or was certainly formed by crossing the native cattle of England with stock imported from Holland. This breed was originally considered remarkable for its milking qualities.

“The Dutch breed, bred for generations for the especial purpose of milk, is to-day noted for large milkers, and among the cows may be found extraordinarily developed escutcheons.

“The following extract, from a translation from the French of Magne on milk cows, is apropos, as showing the difference between characteristics of breeds and qualities of the animals:

“A long, fine head, narrow towards the horns, and a slender chest are given by most writers as characteristics of a good milk cow. Now, in Flemish, Danish, Dutch, and Brittany cows the fineness of head and chest is a characteristic of these races and not the indication of particularly developed milking qualities, being met with alike in the good and bad milkers of those races; whilst in some of the Swiss breeds, and especially in those of St. Gervais, nearly all the cows, whether good or indifferent, possess a large head and heavy chest. The farmers of Ariege, while showing us some remarkably good cows, drew our attention to their strength of chest, ampleness of the dewlap, and the volume of the head: these characteristics of race they mistake for qualities, observing them in their best cows. On the other hand, it is to be remarked that cows with fine heads are often inferior milkers. If fineness of head were a true proof of mammillary activity, would not the cows of the Durham breed be amongst the best dairy animals in the world? This characteristic cannot, therefore, be considered absolutely appreciable, as much depends on the race to which a cow may belong. It is indicative of milk only, because it is a remarkable point in those races which have produced milk cows. Thus a characteristic of race has been mistaken for a sign of particular qualities.”

“If, then, we should regard the escutcheon, as well as a fine head, one of the characteristics common in the Short-Horn, it is not necessary to consider it as an indication of any particularly developed quality. Although probably the best milkers would have this sign, yet it might be regarded as a latent sign of milking qualities which had been bred out by disuse. The only fair way to judge of the value of the escutcheon in determining milking qualities, is to consider its influence in the different breeds separately, not comparing one breed with another. In judging grade cows, characteristics and blood must have a certain influence on the judgment. The general type of the animal must be considered.

“In the Ayrshire cow, we must regard the escutcheon, not as a special characteristic of the breed, but as one of the signs denoting quality.

“If the time should come when it has become so universal a sign of quality as to be considered a characteristic of the breed, then we shall have approached much nearer perfection than at present.

“Admitting that the escutcheon theory is a failure, or at least that it has failed as a test-mark of milk, have we any other mark or series of marks that have invariably given better results?

“Magne says, that in Flanders, a cow is considered a good milker, ‘especially when towards the middle of the spine the apophyses (or projections) are separated or scattered so as to leave a space between of about two finger-breadths,’ for the reason that, when the spine is thus formed, the haunches are better spread, and the thighs and croup larger. The other members of the body are also better developed, the basin is ampler, and the organs placed in this cavity, as well as the udder, are more voluminous.

“Now, would our dairymen consider this a more certain indication of milk, than a good escutcheon?

“Without regarding the escutcheon as an infallible sign of quality and quantity of milk, I believe it to be one of the best indications of milk, that nature has provided; but in the use of this system, we must consider:—

“A good, not to say a thorough, understanding of the Guenon system, cannot be obtained by casual observation, but only by the most painstaking examination of many animals, extending over a long period of time.”