FRANCIS GUENON.

HOW TO SELECT COWS;
OR
THE GUENON SYSTEM
SIMPLIFIED, EXPLAINED, AND PRACTICALLY APPLIED.

BY
WILLIS P. HAZARD,
Secretary of the Pennsylvania Guenon Commission; President of the Chad’s Ford Farmers’ Club; a Vice-President of the American Dairyman’s Association; Lecturer upon Agriculture at the Delaware State College, &c., &c.; Author of Treatises “On the Jersey, Guernsey, and Alderney Cow,” and “On Butter and Butter-making;” “The Annals of Philadelphia,” &c.

WITH NEARLY 100 ILLUSTRATIONS
Photographed from Guenon’s engravings.

PHILADELPHIA:
J. M. STODDART & CO., 1018 Chestnut Street.
1882

Copyrighted
According to Act of Congress
1879.

PREFACE.

The want has long been felt for a hand book which would simplify and explain the invaluable discovery of Guenon, to enable any one to select good stock. There can be no doubt if this discovery is made to be easily acquired, that millions of dollars would be saved to the community by the improvement of herds and a consequent reduction in the price of bovine products, on account of the increased yield and the lower cost of raising it.

The State of Pennsylvania, in 1878, appointed a commission to test the system and report upon it. As a member of that commission, we found there was with many a superficial knowledge of the subject, with others enough acquaintance with the system to destroy their faith in it, and with nearly all a desire to obtain sufficient practical knowledge of the system to enable them to judge understandingly and to practice it.

With a view to fill these wants, we have undertaken the explanation of the system in the following pages to enable all to fill up their measure of knowledge of the system, so that the superficial shall become thorough, the doubting acquire new faith, and all see its merits the more they practice and apply it.

We have accordingly given a sketch of M. Guenon and the progress of his discovery; some extracts from his preface explaining his views; an explanation of his system of escutcheon marks; a description of the various escutcheons and their indications of value and quantity, and directions how to practically apply them, together with the report of the Pennsylvania Guenon Commission.

Believing that we have thus presented a comprehensive view of this discovery, we trust every one into whose hands this work may come, will patiently, book in hand, go into the farm-yard and judge of the value of his stock by the rules here set forth, compare the results with his individual knowledge of his stock, and fairly estimate the value of the system.

The illustrations of the escutcheons are photographed from Guenon’s drawings in his last revised edition.

WILLIS P. HAZARD.

Maple Knoll, West Chester, Pa., September, 1879.

LECTURES ON THE GUENON SYSTEM.

The author of this work having been invited to lecture a number of times before agricultural societies, and being constantly in receipt of letters of inquiry about repeating his lectures, takes this public opportunity to announce that he will make arrangements to repeat his lecture on the Guenon system, illustrated with a series of large drawings. Correspondence is solicited with officers of agricultural societies, granges, agricultural fairs, colleges, farmers’ clubs, and dairymen’s associations. His principal object being to disseminate widely a knowledge of a system of such great value to his brother farmers, the terms will be satisfactory.

At each lecture practical illustrations and instruction is given in the barn-yard or field. Address him at

WEST CHESTER,
Chester County,
Pennsylvania.

LECTURE UPON THE CHANNEL ISLANDS, THEIR PEOPLE, AND THE CATTLE.

The author having recently spent several months in Guernsey and Jersey for the purpose of studying the habits of the people, viewing the scenery, and acquiring a knowledge of the agriculture, and the breeding of their cattle, has embodied the results of his visits in a lecture, which he is now prepared to deliver before agricultural and other associations.

LECTURES UPON AGRICULTURE.

The author having been appointed Lecturer upon Agriculture to the Delaware State College, at Newark, Del., will repeat all or part of the course to farmers’ institutes, colleges, schools, &c. The lectures are popular in character, and not too scientific for general comprehension.

GUENON’S INTRODUCTION TO HIS NEW REVISED EDITION.

Error is propagated with the rapidity of lightning; before it every obstacle disappears, and popular favor seems to welcome it. Truth, on the contrary, is received with indifference, often even with doubt, suspicion, and distrust. Indeed, how often have we not seen the author of a discovery which, having been accepted and realized ought to have advanced the public good and increased the general welfare, come into contact with the hatred, the ignorance, and the envy, and thus become the laughter of fools and the jest of the wise. To some the inventor seemed without good sense; to others an ignoramus. Too feeble to struggle against all, he died broken hearted, and left to his powerful antagonists the glory of having, perhaps for ages, buried his discovery, and to those who bring to perfection cities and fields the deprivation of a good up to that time unknown.

If more happy than those martyrs for a new idea, I should reach, at last, that which concerns me, after twelve years of incessant struggles, to cause the truth to appear to the eyes of all, I should have nothing more to desire. Nothing would remain for me, except to bless the generous hearts which shall have aided me in triumphing over routine and error; then on quitting this world, only to bequeath the worthy men who have so bravely encouraged and seconded my efforts, the task of simplifying my discovery, and rendering my method popular to cause the analytical knowledge of cattle to penetrate even into the most obscure hamlet, and while dividing thus with me the glory of having done this good, their names will be held in grateful remembrance by future generations; such has been the idea which has guided every moment of my life, all the efforts of my mind.

For nearly twelve years, since I have given my method to the public, through a first edition of my “Treatise on Milch Cows,” the savants and the practitioners have been greatly prepossessed with it. When they have seen me make a successful application before them of my system, by a single inspection of animals which I saw for the first time, they have expressed a lively surprise.

In the vegetable kingdom, skillful nurserymen have distinguished more than eighty different orders of pears of summer, of autumn, and of winter; each of these orders has its distinctive characteristics, as many for the shape and the taste of the fruit, as for the time of ripening. And when a tree-grower or an amateur is sufficiently skillful, he distinguishes marvelously all these species one from another by a single inspection, and at whatever time of year it may be. He knows equally well what exposure it is necessary to give to each of them to obtain exquisite fruits.

My first studies had been directed toward arboriculture. I have practiced with my father during many years. My principal occupation was the cutting of trees, grafts, both splits and bandages, and by studying vegetables, I had acquired the idea of and an insight into classifications.

I was better prepared thus for my work of classifying the bovine race, a work which no one had ever tried, either theoretically or practically.

My classification of the characteristic signs, embraces all the races of France and other countries, without distinction of sex or age.

Unknown, up to this day, although they have always existed, these signs have escaped all the world, even the sagacity of the most celebrated painters, as well as that of veterinary doctors of the highest reputations of all times.

The appearance of my method should mark an era, for it opposes and overturns all the prejudiced routines according to which people have practiced up to this time.

It opens a new era in an art in its infancy, in a science whose first principles even were unknown. I should then expound it with the greatest detail.

This method is of the greatest simplicity, whatever has been possible to be said of it, and whoever will become thoroughly familiar with the escutcheon of the first order of each class, will be able to judge of all.

Escutcheons are ten in number. They extend, according to their class, from the centre of the four teats to the level of the upper extremity of the vulva, and may extend in breadth from the middle of the hinder surface of one leg, to the middle of the hinder surface of the other. By their form or configuration, escutcheons characterize and distinguish the ten families which together constitute my classification. Behold, then, to what is reduced, in reality, this pretended immense complication.

A special figure, placed at the end of each class, serves to indicate mongrel animals.

Each of the classes or families is characterized by an escutcheon of fixed form, always similar to itself, while one does not get out of that class or that family, but variable in the dimensions of its surface. That dimension or that surface should be estimated by square centimeters, but that would be too complicated for the practical man; since it depends on the size of the individual, it is estimated by the limits of the escutcheon placed on the hinder part of the animal. The extreme limits are the hams, the interior surface of the legs and vulva. The surface of the escutcheon, of which the extent varies, has permitted me to divide each class or family into six orders, for each one of which I assign, in taking account of the shape, the quantity, the continuation, and the quality of the milk.

The escutcheon of the first order is the most developed; is also the best marked. The escutcheon of each of the five other orders is similar in form to that of the first order. It is, in some sort, only a proportionate reduction—a diminutive. It is the escutcheon of the first order, with the dimensions reduced or brought within less extended limits, reaching no longer the hock nor longer covering the interior of the thighs, nor yet reaching up to the vulva, remaining consequently at a distance greater or less from these boundaries.

I have added to this new edition—

1st. Two new classes, sub-divided also into six orders, (the Left Flanders and the Double Selvage.)

2d. Two varieties of escutcheons, having some similarity with the others.

3d. Finally, the classification of the bull.

These three additions, unpublished until now, complete and generalize the system of characteristic signs, by which one can prove the absolute and relative superiority or inferiority of each individual of the race.

These new forms of escutcheons were known to me at the time of the publication of my first issue, and which I had already announced; but they occurred so rarely in the races which were familiar to me, that I thought they were not worth publishing.

But, now, since I have traveled so much, not only in France, but in foreign countries, I have convinced myself that these classes occur much more commonly in certain races than I had thought at first. I have felt the necessity of putting them in my method, and have given them their proper place.

In respect to the two new varieties of escutcheons, they are like an appendix to the classification, and characterize the product of crossing between different classes.

To state precisely their signification and to value their corresponding milk product, it is necessary to compare these escutcheons with the order of the class to which they are the most analogous.

When I shall have described the different families of true cows, as well as their division into orders, the yield or the quantity of milk, their butyraceous qualities, and the greater or less period of its duration of yield during gestation, I will pass to the bastard cows, which, though perfectly similar in form and color to others, differ essentially from them, for they lose their milk as soon as they are pregnant.

This close resemblance is a source of errors to the most practiced judges.

Thus have I wished in the description of classification, to point out precisely the distinctive signs by the aid of which one can easily recognize them. After the study of bastard cows, comes the chapter of bull re-productors. I have made plain, that in the classifications of bulls, I have reduced to three the numbers of orders of each class, in order to bring the application of the method to the most simple expression. The first will comprehend all the bulls, the good re-producers; the second, the re-producers of middling quality; the third, the bad re-producers. I mean by bad, those in which fails the ability for the transmission of the lactiferous qualities. As one sees, the characteristic signs with the males, as with the females, have a significant value of the highest importance. With the bull, they portray the re-productive qualities, and with the cows the lactiferous qualities. The observers who will apply my system of one kind, as rigorously for the males as for the females, will observe in the passage of one order to the other, the same scale of proportion that this established in the classification of the cows. Although the classification bears more on the lactiferous or re-productive properties than on the others, it is important to take in consideration all the other qualities that the individuals can and ought to possess to be of an irreproachable organization.

The cows of the first and second order of each class, in all the races, will always give in the same country, a greater abundance of milk than those of inferior orders. To recognize the lactiferous produce of cows, whatever may be their class or the locality that they inhabit, it suffices simply to know the quality of the food which makes the habitual nourishment of the cows in the place where they are kept.

In following in his appreciation, the degree of superiority or of inferiority of the escutcheon, one will judge close upon the daily quantity of milk that all the cows of the same country are apt to give, for one will know then in what proportion all the figures of the classification should be modified. A milk cow ought to be neither too fat nor too lean, to give her maximum of milk. All confinements in a period of thinness is prejudicial to the habitual produce. Even when the animal would have recovered her strength, she will not recuperate so as to restore the quantity of her milk; that can take place only after a year, and by means of a new calf. A great milk cow, whatever may be her aptness for fattening, and her condition of fat at the time of calving, becomes thin about fifteen or twenty days after calving; the time of her rut is therefore less near than that of a poor milk cow, because her vital forces are weaker. Witness the quantity of her yield, which is only that of a cow of medium product.

One can compare a milch cow to a fruit tree, which gives more fruit this year than the next. When the sap of the tree carries vigor to the development of the fruit, the growth of the wood remains nearly stationary. When, on the contrary, the tree gives but little fruit, the sap turns to the profit of the wood, to give, after a repose of several years, a greater quantity of fruit, and to continue thus by alternative successions.

It is the same with the cow, for it is seldom that her produce keeps the same during three consecutive years, for the reason that, when the nourishment absorbed by her turns to the profit of the milk, the milk is more abundant; when, on the contrary, the nourishment goes to fat, the milk diminishes.

The variations in the milk quantity should be justly attributed to the influence of atmospheric circumstances of the seasons, which react on the quality of hay and fodder in augmenting or diminishing the nutritive juices of the food.

Cows which are fed in good pastures surpass the product which I have assigned to their class and their order, while those which are in poor and wet pastures have necessarily inferior produce, unless the latter have in the stable nourishing food, more abundant and more succulent than they are able to get for themselves out of doors.

If, for example, the well-fed cows, or those grazing on rich pasture lands, should give as much as twenty to twenty-five quarts of milk per day; these same cows, taken and fed on poor pasture, will give only about ten or twelve quarts.

If, on the contrary, one takes the cows raised on a poor soil, transfers them to rich pastures, the milk produce of these same cows will be superior to that they gave in their original lands.

My readers should well understand that in the valuations of my classifications that I have not pretended to assign a rigorous and absolute amount. I have been only able to give an approximate figure to each class and to each order, adopting the medium limit of the ordinary amount of the different breeds of various localities.

The atmosphere, the care, and the different foods of each country, all these different things exercise upon the animal, an influence favorable or unfavorable, according to the nature of the soil.

There are many other circumstances which should be considered, and which would disturb the harmony of the figures of my valuation and the normal quantity. Such are, for example, the case of sickness, accidents, &c. That is the reason I have adopted, in determining the quantity of cows of each order, a medium figure, such as is shown in the classification.

I will also observe, relative to those animals to which I assign approximate weight in the course of this work, that, following the customs of commerce, of sale, and of butchers, this weight is dead weight, the animal being deprived of the skin, intestines, head, feet, &c.

If, contrary to custom, I had acted otherwise, and had made the calculation for the animal on the hoof, the figures given by me would present a great difference, which would increase according to the amount of fat, sometimes to double the weight.

The discovery which I have made of the value of the escutcheon is designated by the contrary direction of the hair, and which had escaped the attention of every one, even those most interested in gaining the knowledge of it. It is necessary also to avow the effect produced by the change of direction of the hair is not glaring on the animal. It is merely a difference of luster, and the gloss on the surface of the escutcheon and the part of the skin surrounding it. The hair of the escutcheon is finer, shorter, more furry, and more silky. Its appearance, at the first glance, makes one think this part of the animal has been shaved. Compared with the ordinary hair, the skin of the udder appears to be more designed to be quicker seen on the part where appears the escutcheon.

All animals of the bovine species, without excepting even wild animals, are marked with an escutcheon, large, small, or medium, regular or irregular. Their characteristic sign is transmitted with the generating germ.

I have not thought it necessary to say much on that portion of the escutcheon which extends on the stomach of the beast towards the navel. This addition has been thought useless. Enough is shown of the escutcheon when she is standing.

In order to see well the escutcheons with all the fullness which my sketches give them, it must be supposed that the udder of each cow is seen at its greatest plenitude of milk, such as would separate the hind legs to the greatest extent. In this way the escutcheon is seen as if the entire skin of the animal was placed flat, or as if the envelope of the milk bearing apparatus formed a plain surface, on which are drawn the elevations, the depressions, and all that is not visible to the eye, without the aid of hands or of movement of the cow, both that which is hidden at the further side and in the folds of the udder and of the thighs of the animal on foot.

In order to examine and to distinguish perfectly the escutcheon, one should place himself behind the animal and make it advance some steps, in such manner that the movements which it makes in walking should show, one after another, the parts which one needs to see.

One can also, in passing the nails over the space occupied by the escutcheon and leading the hand downward from above, in a manner contrary to the rising hair, and ruffling it, recognize without difficulty its form and its extent.

Theoretical explanations are always abstract and diffuse in their development. My method may at first appear difficult and complicated, which, indeed, pretended savans have chosen to affirm. Nevertheless it is not so, and in order to comprehend it, it is sufficient to study it. It is with this as with everything else, to know it is necessary to study and to practice.

The beautiful art which I am about to explain to agriculturists is most easily acquired. Its technical dictionary is composed only of certain words, of which the readers should, first of all, know perfectly the precise signification.

These words are Escutcheons, Epis or Tufts ascending, and Epis or Tufts descending. After he knows perfectly the different forms and the importance of these characteristic signs, he will know the whole subject as well as I do myself.

The Epis or Tuft, as one will see, participates with the escutcheon in the distinction of the orders—it multiplies the sub-divisions. It seems at the same time to complicate my method and to render it less accessible; but I have not felt myself at liberty to omit it, since it has an incontestible and important value.

If, among certain animals, the form and extent of characteristic signs are not exactly those of the drawings, but a sort of intermediate between the characteristic signs of two classes, he who applies the method should approximate them to the drawing of the classification from which they differ the least, and from that deduce the probable value.

To render my work perfectly clear, I had to enter into the developments very much in detail. Nevertheless, so extensive are these details that I believe I have given neither too many nor too few, and have confined myself simply within the limits of the possible, the indispensible and the useful.

And now, whoever my opponents may be, I proclaim boldly and without fear, that the escutcheon is the only incontestible characteristic sign that can enable one to discern, by simple inspection, the aptitude for milk production of each animal.

All animals of the bovine species in good state of health, to which no accident has happened, and whose escutcheons are of the first orders of each class, will manifest always, and without exception, as much for the production of milk as for generative ability.

Beauty of form, to my thinking, represents but an ideal, and although one ought to take it into consideration, it is a simple accessory without value of its own, when the question is that of the production of milk.

May I have been able to justify by this work the fruit of the experience of my whole life, the honor done me by many agricultural societies in admitting me to their membership, and by the government which has shared the expense of this new edition, with the twofold purpose of encouraging my efforts and facilitating the propagation of my method.

GUENON’S METHOD OF JUDGING OF THE VALUE OF STOCK.

Fifty years ago there was dawning upon the world the first ray of a great discovery. A star was rising in the agricultural world, which was about to shed new light, and like many other valuable discoveries, it was made by one among the lowly, and partly by chance. The author of this new discovery has said, “Error flies with the rapidity of lightning, all obstacles vanish before it. Truth, on the contrary, is admitted coldly, often even with doubt, suspicion, and distrust.” It is owing partly to this, partly to the fact that this new light was given to the world when the mind of farmers were not ready to receive new ideas of progress as they now seek them, and much to the fact that it was the invention of a foreigner described in a foreign tongue. True a translation of it was made through the medium of an American monthly magazine of agriculture; but it was one of limited circulation. At that time the number of periodicals devoted to that interest was few, and such new and important questions were not thoroughly discussed and the knowledge of them placed in every farm-house in the land, as it is at the present day. Shortly after the appearance of M. Guenon’s treatise in the magazine, it was reprinted in book form, and received the large circulation of sixty-five thousand copies, between that time and now, and the book most probably sells better to-day than it did then. By many who procured that book the subject was studied, and advantage taken of its revelations, being stored away in the reader’s mind for actual practice. By the great majority it was read, but not studied; driven from it by the apparent complications of the system and the two hundred sub-divisions of it; by many, perhaps, it was attempted to be put into practice, but without their having given the subject that close investigation which was needed to prove the system correct. It was mostly by this class of persons, because the system was not found to be infallible, that it was denounced and given up, even by men otherwise intelligent; as if anything human could be infallible. Thus it is that by the ignorant its revelations were received with incredulity, and by many of the intelligent with doubt; but to the earnest seekers after practical information, it has unfolded a mine of wealth, and they have proved the system by continuous experience, and found it to be the most reliable mode of judging of the value of every member of the bovine species.

It was a happy thought that suggested itself to the Pennsylvania State Board of Agriculture, to have the system tested by uninterested parties. But extremely difficult, it was, to obtain persons to make the test. For those to whom application was made declined it on various grounds, principally because, as Guenon himself has stated in his latest edition, many pretended savans would endeavor to throw ridicule upon it; many others would identify the gentlemen making the tests with it, as if it was their system that they were testing; while not a few still more narrow-minded, would think they were trying to humbug them. Thus it was difficult to fill the places, which offered neither honor nor profit.

It will be seen, by these extracts, that the Governor appointed three experts to test the system. This they did in the summer of 1878, examining two hundred cows, jotting down their opinion of the yield, quality, and time of each of them, and afterwards printing them alongside of the reports of their owners, so that the public could form their own estimate of the results of the examinations of the commission. They are here reprinted, to show how it was carried out. Particular attention is called to the examinations of the blanketed cows in Thomas Gawthrop’s herd.

On M. Guenon and his System.

It is proper we should inquire into M. Guenon, and the origin and development of his system.

Monsieur François Guenon, a husbandman of Libourne, in France, was the son of a gardener, and followed for sometime his ancestor’s trade. He seems to have had a mind above those in his position. As we look at his portrait, he appears to have a clear eye, a cool head, great determination, firmness of character, a well-balanced mind, and with it all, a vigor of constitution which buoys him up, and enables him to over-ride obstacles. He says himself, he was of an observant turn of mind, fond of comparing things, and deducing consequences from what he learned by observation and comparison, particularly from the Book of Nature. Young, ardent and healthy, with the vivacity of his race, he felt himself destined for better things than those a gardener’s life would insure him. What wonder then that his eye was keen to see, his mind to grasp and analyze any new turn of thought that chance might throw in his way.

Like most self-made men, who have made their mark in life’s pilgrimage, he set himself to work to improve himself—to acquire that which would expand his mind, and fit it to receive any new inspiration, and be able to develop it. He studied the works of the best writers on botany and agriculture; and applied his knowledge by following up all the ramifications of the vegetable kingdom, and studied their external signs, that distinguish the different sorts, and ascertained their qualities and productiveness.

In France, they have few fences, and the cattle of a neighborhood are driven to the grazing ground, and herded together, and, in turn, members of each or several families, (the younger portion,) are put to watch that the cattle do not stray out of bounds. Such companionship with their stock makes the owners fond of them, and they are treated as pets, and become very docile. When young Guenon was about fourteen years of age, he would drive their cow to graze. His cow he was very fond of, and could identify her among any number. She was a good milker.

The Escutcheon or Mirror.

In his authorized account of the discovery and perfection of his system, Guenon uses the following language: “When fourteen years of age, I used, according to country custom, to drive our only cow to the grazing ground. I was very fond of her, and could have identified her among ever so many. One day as I was whiling away the time in cleaning and scratching my old companion, I noticed that a sort of bran or dandruff detached itself in considerable quantities from certain spots on her hind parts, formed by the meeting of the hair as it grew in opposite directions, which spots I have since called ears, from the resemblance they often bear to the bearded ears or heads of wheat or rye. This first attracted my attention, and I recollected having heard my grandfather say that it was probable that there were external marks on cows whereby their good qualities or their defects might be known—just as we judge of the vital force of a plant and its qualities by means of its leaves and lines in its skin. Reflecting on the subject, I arrived at the conclusion that if in the vegetable kingdom there exists external signs, whereby the good and the bad qualities of a plant can be positively known, there ought to exist in the animal, or its kingdom, also, marks whereby we may judge, by inspecting an animal, of its qualities, good and bad, and I thought I had discovered one of these signs. I sought the bearded ears or quirls, and scratched those spots in quest of dandruff, the abundance or scarcity of this being what first engaged my attention. Every new cow was compared with my own as a standard, and her superiority, equality, or inferiority determined in my own mind. In the course of the comparisons thus instituted by me, with reference to the dandruff alone, which was at first the only thing that governed me, I had occasion to remark that great diversities existed among cows in respect to the shape of the bearded ears (quirls) which produced the dandruff. This suggested a new train of reflection and observation, which resulted in my becoming convinced that these shapes were the signs by which to distinguish cows, and to know the good and bad qualities of every individual among them.”

Imported Jersey Cow BLACK BESS.

Imported Jersey Cow TIBERIA.

Belonging to C. L. Sharpless, Philadelphia.

In his original plan, Guenon divided these different shapes into eight classes, each of which was sub-divided into eight orders. As he progressed in his investigations, he afterwards added two more classes, and reduced the orders to six in each class. These he supposed would cover all cases which might come up for examination. He also divided cows into three grades, which, in accordance with their size, he styled high, low, and medium. From this it will be noted that Guenon, in classifying cows, was governed first by the class, second by the order in the class, and finally by their size. These classes he divided and named as follows:

The ten orders in each of these classes were simply designated by their appropriate numerals. Each class was better than the succeeding one, and each order better than the following one of the same class, but might be better than the preceding order of the next class.

Of this seeming multiplicity of classes, orders, and sizes, Chalkley Harvey, one of the commission appointed to test the system, writes thus:

“Now this may seem somewhat discouraging to your readers, but with all due respect to Guenon, to whom all honor and praise should be accorded for his brilliant discovery, I think that it may be so simplified that every farmer, dairyman, and dealer can learn it all in a short time, and may find the study quite interesting. I began it laboriously, supposing that a mastery of all the details was necessary to make it of any use, but more than twenty years of constant application in practice has simplified it to my mind, and has added a little, I think, to the original discovery. The substance of Guenon’s discovery is that the milking qualities of any cow, of any breed, are indicated by an outward sign that all may see and easily understand. The hair on a cow, as on other animals, grows downward on the hind-quarters, but there is an exception to this rule on the back part of the udder, where it usually grows upward. The first lesson for a beginner is to notice this fact. Let him stand behind a quiet cow, and rub the hair on the udder both ways until he sees or feels just what I mean. Guenon called the surface that is covered by this upward growth the escutcheon; others have called it the milk-mirror; but this is no improvement in any respect, and I shall name it as Guenon did, for there is no real objection to that name, and there is serious objection to making confusion by calling the same thing by different names. The escutcheon, then, is that surface on the cow’s udder where the hair grows upward. But it is not confined to the udder, it extends upward above the udder, often to the vulva, and outward upon the thighs on both sides of the udder. (See Flanders cow, class first, order first.) These escutcheons are different in size, in shape, and in quality, (quality means the quality of the skin, and of the hair growing on it,) and these differences indicate the different milking qualities of the cows, including quantity and quality of milk, and the length of time they will give milk after being with calf. On the edges of the escutcheon where the upward and the downward growths of hair meet, a feather is formed, and this is most conspicuous on the back part of the thighs where escutcheons extend that wide. If the hair is long, as it generally is in winter time, the observer can define the limits of the escutcheon better by applying his hand, and smoothing the hair to its natural place. He will now perceive that the hair on the escutcheon is shorter and softer than elsewhere, as well as turned upward in its growth, and sometimes nearly resembles fur.

“Let us now particularly consider the shapes and sizes of these escutcheons. There is one general shape to which they conform, and that is that they are wider below than above, and at or near the top of the udder they narrow in abruptly; some continue up as far as the vulva, and even above it, and others but a little distance above the udder. The size and shape of this upper part of the escutcheon is of less importance than that of the lower part, but both must be considered—the larger the escutcheon the better. All great milkers have very large escutcheons. In large ones the upturned growth often begins on the belly, in front of the udder, extends along between the teats and up the back part of the udder, over the whole width. Indeed, the udder is not wide enough for it, and it encroaches on the thighs, where we may find the hair having an upward growth on them, inside next the udder, beginning not far above the hock joints, and running up as high as the wide part of the escutcheon extends up the thighs, and which often terminates with corresponding curls in the hair at the outlines, and the higher up and wider these are apart the better. Though the extension of the escutcheon to the front part of the udder on the belly has been mentioned, that is not a matter of practical interest in ordinary cases. All that needs to be studied is plain to be seen by standing behind the cow. When the escutcheon is small, it does not reach the thighs, and often does not cover the whole of the back part of the udder. These differences in size can be distinguished at the first lesson taken in the cow-yard, and when that has been done, the next thing is to consider their shapes. A good escutcheon is symmetrical. The feathers on the two thighs are at equal distance from the middle line of the body, and extend up to equal heights on the back parts of the thighs. A broad and high escutcheon, (speaking now only of the lower broad part of it,) that is alike on both sides, certainly indicates a superior milker. There is nearly always another sign accompanying such an escutcheon, and that is one or two ovals just above the hind teats, on which a fine coat of hair grows downward. These may be large or small, may be one or two, and may be alike in size, or unlike, but they are always good signs. Two are better than one, and the larger and more uniform they are the better; they are almost always present on large and symmetrical escutcheons. No escutcheon is ever first class if it has not one or both, and one, at least, of good size. What constitutes ‘good size’ will be better learned by a few observations than can be taught by inches, and I want to leave something to the ingenuity of the learner, to make the study interesting.

“Now, let us consider the shape and size of that part of the escutcheon which I have spoken of as the upper part; that is, the narrow portion that has its base on the top of the lower and wider portions, and runs up toward the vulva. Sometimes, though very rarely, this does not exist at all. Sometimes it is broad, and extends all the way up, with perfect symmetry. Sometimes it terminates in a curved line, at a greater or less distance up; and, indeed, it may be seen of almost any shape. As a sign of excellence, the larger and more symmetrical it is, the better—but a good lower part of the escutcheon is the main thing, and that, as a sign, can hardly be vitiated by any imperfection of the upper part. When the lower part is very good, there is usually uniformity in the part. A poor escutcheon is one that is small, or that is imperfect in form.”

The Progress of His System.

With his mind keenly alive to the pursuit of his investigations, he soon perceived the difference in the shape of these quirls or marks in the hair. We can imagine how, when he saw any cow with the same escutcheon as his own had, he would eagerly and closely question the owner, and then make his comparisons and deductions. Then, again, when he would see variations from his cow’s escutcheon, whether larger or smaller, though of similar shape, how he would study them over! When he would ask of the owner such questions, directed by his knowledge of the cow’s marks, the owner would stare, and think how the lad could know so well of his cow. And then his secret exultation when the answers showed him that he had judged aright! We can imagine this young enthusiast going on, from step to step, filling up his leisure with his acquisitions of his new theory, which was becoming fact, and growing into a system.

From his first step of discovering the dandruff, its scarcity or abundance, to his noticing the great diversity existing among cows as to the shape of the bearded ears or quirls, and being convinced these shapes were the signs by which to distinguish cows, and then to make sure that the same mark might always be relied upon as a positive sign of the same perfection or defect; were all steps in the discovery that engrossed his whole mind. He gave up his trade, traveled about, visiting cattle markets, fairs, and stables. Conversing and cross-questioning all whom he could; fixing the results in his mind, and getting the classification shaped out. He talked with farmers, dealers, and veterinary men, ascertained their modes of judging of the points of an animal, and found they were all by their own favorite signs and marks. One looked to the udder, the horns, the hide, or the shape; others to the hair, the veins, or something else; but none judged by the signs which he had found out. All were uncertain. The most the best judges could do would be to guess rightly, perhaps, three times out of five, but none could tell how long a cow would milk. Perfecting his judgment he would visit the same places and the same cows several times in a year, to see how nature was operating upon the animals, and their changes of character in the different periods of gestation, their treatment and food.

Of course, he soon began to put his theories to practical value, and he dealt in cattle on his own account. This brought before him cattle from Holland, Switzerland, Brittany, and other countries. This improved his opportunities by proving to him that, no matter what country gave them birth, all individuals possessing the same marks belonged to the same class and the same orders; in short, that nature acted through uniform laws.

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.

Of the Ovals.

The ovals on the udder are spoken of by Guenon, and our experience is that they are always indicative of a good yield; particularly, when they are uniform in size and position, and of fine, soft hair, descending on the udder. But there is another set of marks, which the Pennsylvania Guenon Commission have denominated thigh ovals, which are an invariable indication of a good cow, particularly when she is otherwise well-marked. Of these, Guenon does not speak. Eusebius H. Townsend and Chalkley Harvey were the first to call attention to them, and Charles L. Sharpless has written of them. Our own cow, which took the premium over all the Jersey cows, at the fall exhibition, in 1878, of the Chester County Agricultural Society, has them most extraordinarily developed. As she is a very thorough example of this marking, we have had the likeness made of her escutcheon, and request the reader’s attention to it.

Of the Bastards.

Guenon denominates those cows which give milk, much or little, so long as they are not got with calf; but, when impregnated, begin to fall off in their milk. The term he uses is batard, which means, in English, bastard, spurious, of a mixed breed, mongrel. We should have preferred to call them spurious cows, as the term bastard does not exactly express the meaning we apply to that word; but, as it has before been translated bastard, and is so known by many, we retain it.

The bastards are often the best looking cows; have finely developed escutcheons, and many give a great deal of milk, some poor quality and some rich; but, as soon as they are pregnant, they go dry very soon, or fall off rapidly in their milk, while others give very little milk at all. From their fine show, they deceive a great many, and Guenon cautions buyers, as the most skillful will make mistakes. He has, however, given a series of drawings, by which they can generally be discovered.

These bastards mostly conceive well, and the first time they are put to the bull, they vary in the quality of milk they give like other cows. The flow of milk is at its height during the first eight days after calving, though of bad quality. It then diminishes a little, and keeps on at about the same yield until she conceives again, when it diminishes again, more or less rapidly.

To discover a bastard, consult the engravings which are given to each class. To the first class, the Flanders, there are two kinds. The first, which is the most common, has on each edge of the vertical escutcheon, a feathery appearance, and where this is strongly marked by the down- and up-growing hairs meeting, and they interlock and stand out from the skin, and, besides, are harsh and wiry, and generally shiny, glistening, and looking of lighter color, beware of them. The harsher, coarser they are, the shorter time will the cow milk after getting with calf. The second kind of bastards among the Flanders will have an oval on the vertical escutcheon, generally near the middle part, of about two to three inches in length, by one and a half to two inches wide, on which will be found coarse wiry hair, and the harsher it is, and the larger the oval is, the sooner the cow will cease to milk. It may often be discovered by the glistening appearance of the hair on it.

On all the other classes, the bastard marks consist of two oval patches of hair, one on each side of the vulva; and the larger they are, the more pointed in shape, and the coarser and more wiry the hair on them, the sooner the cow will cease to milk.

The importance of learning the bastard marks is very great, as the buyer can safely avoid them, and leave them to those less skilled. While he may buy the less showy looking cow for much less money, and get a better animal than the unskilled man will obtain even for the higher price.

All animals are more readily judged correctly, and the system can be learned more easily, in summer than in winter, both on old and young; for then the winter coat of hair is off, and the hair is shorter, and the escutcheon is more easily perceived. The skin, also, is more natural and soft, and the hair is usually not so harsh to the feel; and the cows are cleaner, and all marks or blemishes more quickly seen.

How to Apply the System Practically.

We will now proceed to apply the foregoing rules and hints practically. In doing so, we may repeat some that has been before said, but it will only impress it the stronger in the mind of the learner.

This classification embraced all the kinds of cows known to Guenon, each individual escutcheon corresponding with one of the orders of those classes. The class, the order and the size of an animal indicate her yield of milk, and this will always be found to correspond with her escutcheon. Every cow has an escutcheon which can be recognized, and according as it is free from blemish or imperfection, just in that degree does she approach perfection in her class.

Guenon, in the last edition of his work, has altered and simplified his classification somewhat, for he divided it into ten CLASSES, and six ORDERS to each class. He maintained his three grades of size. But our experience shows that the cows in this country do not vary so much in size as they probably do in France, for there they have the little Brittany cow, which is very small but good, and, of course, they have also cows as large as our Durhams or the Holsteins. Only this, bear in mind, that cows, as a general rule, all other things being equal, will vary in their yield somewhat according to their size; and in judging cows apply that rule, for it is part of Guenon’s system, and they will vary in the quality according to the breed. Well, then, for practical purposes, we need only study sixty escutcheons, that is ten different shapes called Classes, and six grades to each of those shapes, more or less perfect, which are called Orders. To these must be added ten more for a Bastard to each class. And it is really necessary to study perfectly only the first four orders of each class and the Bastard marks, as it is not worth while to purchase or pay much attention to any cows lower in the scale than the fourth order of any class. And to simplify it still more, you will notice the thigh escutcheons of the first orders have all nearly the same shovel shape, so that by remembering this you need only study the vertical portions to readily place the animals in their proper class.

The Escutcheon.

The escutcheon was so-called, we presume, from its similarity to the shape of a shield or escutcheon, and on a first-class cow it will be very like it, and somewhat like a round-pointed shovel. On this escutcheon, the hair will generally be of a different color from that bordering it, most generally rather darker, always shorter, and more nearly resembling fur. This difference in color is produced by the UP-growing hair contrasting with the DOWN-growing surrounding it. The hair of the escutcheon should be short, soft, and fine; and the skin very soft, like a kid glove, thin, and oleaginous. And if the cow gives good rich milk, this skin will be of a rich, golden, or nankeen hue. Often where you handle a skin of this character the hands will feel oily, and soiled with rich dandruff.

The Shape of the Escutcheon.

The Escutcheon varies in shape, and Guenon named his ten classes from their shapes.

The first class, he called Flandrine or Flanders, because it is the best, and he named it from the best cows he knew, those from Flanders, or the Flemish breed, and they had more of this shaped escutcheon than any other breed; a quiet but sure proof of the truth of his system.

The second class he called Flandrine à gauche, because although it had the Flanders shape, it was on the left flank, he called it therefore the Left Flanders.

The third class are the Lisière, or The Selvage, from its appearance to a selvage, or binding of a piece of cloth.

The fourth class are the Courbe-Ligne, or the Curveline, because their escutcheon is lozenge-shaped, formed by a curved line which sides to the right and left, and rises to about five or six centimeters from the vulva.

The fifth class he denominated Bicorne, or the Bicorn cow, because the upper part of this escutcheon forks in two horns.

The sixth class, Double-Lisière, or Double Selvage, has an entirely arbitrary name, and it is an odd freak of nature.

The seventh class is called Poitevine, or Demijohn, from a fancied resemblance to some kinds of demijohns.

The eighth class is Equerrine, or Square-Escutcheon, as it is square at the upward part.

The ninth class is the Limousine, as it was on a cow from that Province that Guenon first saw this shaped escutcheon.

The tenth class is called Carrésine, or Horizontal, because the upward part of the escutcheon is cut off squarely by a horizontal line.

To each of the above ten Classes, Guenon has placed six Orders, which are variations of the escutcheon, formed by a reduced size and by various imperfections. If the reader will remember always, that the first class is better than the second class, and the second class better than the third class, and so on down the scale, to the end of the classes, he will have gained the first step in acquiring the system. Then the next point to remember is similar, that is, that the first order of every class is better than the second order of that class, and so on down the scale of the orders, until the sixth. Then he must learn the different shapes; first, the characteristic shape of each class, as represented by the first order of that class, and connect with this, in his mind, the number of quarts a first-class cow, in good feed and condition, should give, as represented by that escutcheon, in her full flow of milk. Then he can next learn the variations in size and shape from this pattern escutcheon, and that will enable him to tell which order of her class to put her in, and that will then inform him what quantity of milk she will give, and how long she will give it when with calf. And we repeat here, it is necessary only to acquire the knowledge of the first three or four orders of each of the ten classes, as if the cow examined does not come within those orders, she is not worth examining further nor keeping longer, nor certainly worth purchasing. Then the learner must next acquire a knowledge of the distinguishing marks which point out a Bastard cow, for an account of which marks, see under that head.

Now all of this knowledge must, to put it into profit practically, be supplemented by the careful examination of the hair and the skin, of the escutcheon, and the udder: of the hair, whether it is short, fine, soft, and furry; of the skin, whether it is soft and close-grained like a kid glove, thin, oleaginous, and yellow or golden. For if the hair is harsh, and long, particularly on the back part of the udder, it will shorten the time of giving milk, and indicates a poorer quality. The more oily or greasy to the feeling the skin of the udder and the perineum is, the more it indicates good quality and richness of milk, for the oil or fat is there, showing it is in the nature of that animal to give butyraceous milk. So with the color of the skin, if it is golden it is indicative of rich milk, and the majority think it will make a finer colored butter. There is one point more in judging by the escutcheon, and that is its size and position, and the general rule is, the higher up it is on the thighs, and the broader it is on the thighs, together with the higher and broader it is on the perineum, even up to the vulva, then the better it is. Then remember the escutcheon has two principal parts, called the thigh escutcheon and the vertical escutcheon; the thigh escutcheon extends over the udder and the thighs; and the vertical is over the perineum or that part of the posterior which extends from the udder up to the tail and above the vulva.

If the thigh escutcheon is high and broad, therefore very large, and extends far outward on to the thighs, it indicates a large flow of milk. If the vertical or upper part is broad and smooth, it indicates a prolonged flow of milk.

If the thigh or lower portion of the escutcheon is narrow, the flow will be proportionally small. If the vertical or upper part is narrow and irregular, it is unfavorable to a prolonged flow.

Chalkley Harvey says further of these marks: “Imperfections, that is blemishes of form, occur in considerable variety on both large and small escutcheons. They are all certain evidence of a diminished value of the cow as a milker. A small and imperfect escutcheon on a good cow, is something I have never yet seen. Any want of symmetry in the form of an escutcheon is an imperfection. The two sides should be alike. A small but perfect escutcheon may be better than a larger one that is imperfect. A very good one is both large and perfect.

“Thus far we have considered the escutcheon in reference to its form and size alone, and may now say, that the quantity of milk depends on these, but its quality is indicated by other signs, which we find to a great extent in the same place. It is too well known to require any assertion, that some cows give a large quantity of very poor milk, and others an equally large quantity of rich milk. It is equally well known that some cows give but little milk, though they yield a good quantity of butter; and I repeat, that the signs indicative of these differences of quality are found in the escutcheon, and they are easily recognized. If the skin in the escutcheon is soft and oily, and particularly if it is of a rich yellow color, (though this is more easily seen by examining the end of the tail,) suggestive of “gilt edged” butter, that cow will give good milk. In such cases we will find her hair soft and short. There may be some long hairs, too, but the undergrowth will be as mentioned, and often has almost the quality of fur. But if, on the other hand, the skin is white and dry, and the hair thin and harsh, the cow gives poor milk. If her escutcheon is large and symmetrical, she may give a large quantity of poor milk. The form and size of the escutcheon indicate quantity, the skin and hair indicate quality. These signs are true also as applied to bulls, being in such cases a proper guide in the selection of animals to breed milkers from. My own experience and observation, which has been considerable in the matter, convinces me that cows inherit their milking qualities more from their sires than from their dams; and it is probable that many who have been disappointed in heifers raised from some favorite milkers, will be disposed to agree with me. If this be true, then the Guenon method has an application that must prove valuable to those who breed cows for dairy purposes. Another interesting fact is, that we can discover all the signs on a calf, and are thereby enabled to select with much certainty those that are fit for the dairy, and to reject those that would be only a disappointment, if raised for that purpose. Of course, a very small cow, with ever so good an escutcheon, cannot be expected to give a very large quantity of milk, and might be inferior in that respect to one having a less perfect one, where the animal is of greater size. But in such cases, the small cow would give much more in proportion to the cost of keeping. In all cases, therefore, the size should be taken into account.

“There is a sign that may be mentioned here, (though it does not properly belong to the Guenon system,) which is a very certain evidence that a cow will give a large quantity of milk, though it expresses nothing in relation to quality. It is the large size of the vein running forward from the udder, on the belly, and just under the skin. This is called the milk vein, and when it is very large and crooked, and enters the abdomen through a hole that will allow the entrance of a man’s finger, it is, I repeat, a sign that the cow will yield a large quantity of milk.

“The time that a cow will continue to milk after she is with calf, varies in different cases—some ceasing almost as soon as pregnant, and others milking up to calving. Generally the best milkers milk the longest. Hence it follows, that a good escutcheon usually indicates continued flow as well as large quantity. Those escutcheons that are not large at the base, but that run up to the vulva symmetrical all the way, and pretty wide, indicate a yield of milk up to the time of calving.”

A PERFECT COW—DUCHESS—Imported Jersey, belonging to Chas. L. Sharpless.

Our Mode of Judging Stock.

The beauty of the Guenon system is, that it is an aid to all other modes of selecting stock, and therefore, it gives a decided advantage to the person who understands it over the one who does not. For instance, let two buyers go into a herd, and let them be equal judges of stock, one of them will be very apt to buy a bastard, while the other one would very positively leave her alone, simply because the latter has a knowledge of the best and surest mode of all modes of judging stock. And this knowledge does not prevent him from using his half a dozen other modes of deciding its merits, but aids them. So, too, in selecting a bull for a propagator, the believer in Guenon will select one with a good escutcheon and a fine skin, while the other will decide almost entirely by the form. And so with calves, the one who selects calves by the Guenon marks will be pretty sure to have a dairy of productive cows, while the other will have to dispose of some unprofitable ones. The one makes money, because he is working intelligently with every light of science, while the other is only guessing pretty well.

We first look at a cow from the front, and see that she widens as she gets back to her hips, or is wedge-shaped. Next we look at her side, and we again see that she rises on her back and descends on the belly as she goes back to the tail, or in other words she is wedge-shaped, too, from this point of view. These two looks at her have enabled us to see that she has a feminine appearance; that her head is small and neat in proportion to her body, with a waxy small horn, a mild but large eye, a broad muzzle, and that it is well set on her neck; that she has a good chest, and large deep paunch, with large full ribs, fuller below and joined to a rather high back bone; that is to say she has not the breadth of back we look for in a beef animal. If the chine is double, it indicates a cow above the average; if the chine is single, sometimes we can lay our three fingers in three depressions in it at about the middle of it, showing that she is a loose rangy cow, and fitted for her work. Now we will look at her udder and see that it runs forward as level as possible to the belly, and that it is large, with four good-sized, well-shaped teats slightly strutting from each quarter. Now we gently approach her, and pat her to gain her confidence, and get a chance to feel her hide, her milk veins, and examine her escutcheon. If we find her skin is thin, soft, and greasy, with short fine hair, with rather a furry nature, and showing the skin yellow under it; that her udder and her perineum have soft thin skin, with very short furry hair; that her milk veins are large, zig-zag, and knotty, entering the body with good-sized holes, and particularly if this vein is double, extending and ramifying over the udder well back in prominent veins, and if the veins extend over the perineum, we may then, with great confidence, look for a large well-shaped and formed escutcheon, marked first class, order first, by an oval on each side of the back of the udder, and perhaps two thigh ovals or dips where the vertical escutcheon rises from the broad or thigh escutcheon; and just to finish and find all points corroborating, we will look on the vertical escutcheon for some spots of oily lemon colored dandruff, and at the end of her neat, lightly made tail to find some large yellow pieces of dandruff. We don’t like to see it dry and brown; and as we step back from her, we just give a parting look to see that her hips are rather large, bony, somewhat drooping, that her capacious udder has room to project between her legs.

Then, we feel sure that a loose, open made cow, rather pointed, or sharp and well-defined, and the contrary of what we would look for in a flesh or beef producing animal; with a skin mellow and yellow, covered with soft, fine hair, and the nearer it comes to the quality and color of a first class Guernsey or Jersey cow, breeds which have for hundreds of years been bred for butter making, then we repeat we know she must be a good, rich milker and butter maker; for we never saw a thick, hard skin cow, with coarse, long hair, that was a good butter maker, or fit for anything but giving poor milk, if a strong milker.

Our preference is for a medium sized cow, one that will dress five hundred and fifty or six hundred pounds; and, as far as our observation goes, a Jersey sire, with an Ayrshire dam, is the best cross for a milk and butter cow, and the most profitable for the amount of food consumed; though a Jersey or Guernsey sire to the milking stock of Durhams, or a Holstein, or a large yielding native cow, will produce a better cow for butter than the mother was.

To get thorough practice in valuing the escutcheon, take this book in hand, and go into your dairy-yard; compare the escutcheon of each cow with her picture in this book; see what it calls for time and quantity, and then thoroughly test your cow; don’t guess at it, as most farmers do; and make your own comparisons. Remember the size and class of the escutcheon will give you the quantity and time; the skin and hair will give you the quality; and always remembering the size of the cow, and of what breed she is, for they must qualify your opinion somewhat.

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:—

• 1. Very good, or extraordinary.
• 2. Good, or good middling.
• 3. Middling, and little below middling.
• 4. Small.
• 5. Very bad milkers.

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

• 1. The very good.
• 2. The good.
• 3. The medium.
• 4. The bad.

“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:—

• 1. The breed.
• 2. The age.
• 3. The feed.
• 4. The treatment (present and past.)
• 5. The health.

“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.”

Objections to the System and to the Report of the Commission.

M. Guenon in his Treatise on Milk Cows, does not give any positive reasons why the escutcheon is indicative of the yield. He rested content with the fact, that he had proved it so before many learned men, and risked his reputation upon publishing the facts. The system as far as we have been able to trace it, has always been verified by those who have thoroughly studied it, and tested it by extended practice according to the rules of Guenon. The principal cavilers against it, either admit they have not constantly pursued it, or show by their writings their lack of sufficient knowledge of it. The report of the Pennsylvania commission has incited several to write against the system. The principal paper produced was one read before a meeting of the State Board of Agriculture, by Eastburn Reeder, and which he had reprinted in several papers. Of this essay, it is sufficient to say, he showed he had not studied nor practiced the system thoroughly, and because he could not understand it and got befogged, he quoted a large mass of scientific matter to show the system could not be true. These attempts at argument are so quietly, but completely, set aside in the essay of Prof. D. E. Salmon, D. V. M., on Contested Dairy Questions, quoted below, that we shall not discuss them further. For we cannot any more tell absolutely and positively why the escutcheon reveals what it does, than we can tell why a black cow eating green grass, converts red blood into white milk, than we can tell why the green grass grows. In both questions at issue, we have certain facts and theories to guide our reason and judgment about them, but we know nothing positive, and because it is so, Mr. Reeder and Mr. Hardin won’t believe it is so or can be so.

In addition to what Mons. Magne, the eminent French veterinarian, one of the most celebrated medical professors in France has written, Professor Arnold, of Rochester says, when indorsing what Magne writes:

“The size of the escutcheon is regarded as the measure of the quantity of blood supplied to the milk-producing vessels, and are evidence of their capability of elaborating milk. In the same way, the veins take up the blood, and carry it back in the milk veins which pass through the bag and along the belly, and enter the body through one or more holes, on their way to the heart. The size of these milk veins, and the holes where they enter the body, vary with the escutcheon, and like it, give evidence of the quantity of venous blood passing away, from and through the udder, and they have the same significance with reference to quantity, as the supply of arterial blood and the size of the escutcheon.”

Mr. Reeder also quotes the weights of cattle given by Guenon, and triumphantly exclaims, whoever saw such small cows in this country? Guenon distinctly quotes the weights, as net dead weight, or the animal deprived of its head and horns, its hide, entrails, and feet, and gives the excellent reason for it when he says: “If I had made the calculations for the animal on the hoof, the figures given by me would present a great difference, which would increase according to the amount of fat, sometimes to double the weight.” Unfortunately, Mr. Reeder did not know enough of Guenon’s facts to be aware of this clear statement, and supposed the weights were live weight.

Again, he says the commission did not examine the stock correctly. He would have looked at an animal, decided what escutcheon it had, or “to which class and order she belongs, and then append the figures of Guenon as the result. Any other mode of proceeding is not testing the Guenon system.” Here again his lack of knowledge of the system is shown; it would be exceedingly unjust to the reputation of Guenon, as he distinctly declares the size, the age, the breed, the treatment, the season, the period of gestation, &c., shall be fully considered. It is the judgment of just such men passed upon the system, which have tended to throw any doubt upon the merit of Guenon’s assertions. What would be thought of the judgment of such a person, if told by a physician to administer three things to a patient, and he gave but one, and the patient died, and he excused himself by saying, “you told me to give him medicine, and I gave it.”

Then Mr. Reeder denies the value of the system for pointing out the best feeders. The cow which gives the most butter, and which this system will readily point out, will fatten the most rapidly when dried off; for the butyraceous particles, which go to make the butter, will be diverted from the milk and turn to fat on the animal.

Mr. Reeder objects to the report of the commission, that they “in some cases failed to classify cows,” and “made incorrect classifications,” and “in some cases gave different results from Guenon,” and lastly “the terms employed to denote quantity, quality, and duration, are too vague, indefinite, and unsatisfactory.” In all these objections, Mr. R., it will be readily seen by any practicer of the system, shows his utter ignorance of the mode of applying it.

Guenon says it is sometimes impossible to properly classify an animal, owing to the effects of a cross, or some freak of nature. In such cases they may be judged according to the escutcheon it the nearest resembles. This the commission did, but of course could not classify them.

His judgment as to “incorrect classifications” we must pass by as of no account, he not being any more capable of that than the commission.

The same may be said of “giving different results from Guenon.” That is entirely a matter of judgment. Guenon says, judge of the cow by various things and then the result will approximate the amount stated to each escutcheon. Mr. Reeder says the amount set down to each escutcheon is inflexible. We prefer to follow the skill of Guenon and not the ignorance of Reeder, as it was Guenon we were appointed to test.

Finally, he objects to the terms employed to denote the significance of the escutcheon. The great difficulty of the commission was to find herds of which an accurate test of each animal had been made and kept. We believe not one farmer in one hundred thousand has such a record. Yet the commission are expected by such “infallible” advocates as Mr. R. to tell the exact character of each cow, and that record is to be set down alongside of the inaccurate record of the owner; and if they vary at all, the commission are the ones at fault. The very terms Mr. R. objects to were employed by us by special agreement with the owners, because they hesitated to say how many quarts or pounds each of their cows gave. But where there were such careful farmers as W. M. Large, M. Eastburn, J. Pyle, and M. Conard, who gave quarts, and the commission gave quarts, we would invite attention to the comparative reports as the best answer. And even in Mr. R.’s own case we ask comparison, for the reason why the commission are on most of his cows one or two quarts higher is easily accounted for, because we did not learn until after the examination that he was generally ranked by his neighbors a poor feeder, which would certainly make the difference. In the cases of such fine herds as those of S. J. Sharpless, Thomas M. Harvey, Thomas Gawthrop, and H. Preston, &c., the accounts were highly satisfactory to their owners and confirmed them in the merits of the system. For the same reasons we object to his test of “the system in other herds” as any proof of the merits of Guenon, for it was his interpretation of the escutcheons that is given, and it would be very unfair to judge Guenon as interpreted by one who is not an expert.

Mr. Hardin has written much against the system, but containing very little argument, and no valid objection. We will endeavor to sift out of the mass, any points made:

He thought there should be one “non-believer” on the commission, so as to “make a fair and disinterested report.” What possible use he may have been is a mystery, except to cavil at what perhaps he did not understand. The commission simply put down what they interpreted the escutcheons to indicate, and the owner stated what he knew of his stock. The two accounts were brought together and compared. What more a non-believer could have done, we are at a loss to conceive.

His process of examination was laid down thus: “To take down in writing before you see the cows, the owners’ and milkers’ opinions of all the cows to be tested.” “Make the owners and milkers, out of hearing of each other, tell you the name of the cow, her age, how much milk she gives when fresh, how much milk she gives a year, is her milk rich or poor; have you ever tested the milk by measure, or otherwise to determine the amount or its richness; what breed is she?” “Get a non-believer to make pencil sketches of each escutcheon.” “The Governor to appoint two more on the committee who are not believers.”

Now, having laid out this programme, he does not say what was to be done with it. The inference was to be drawn, we suppose, that the many escutcheons were to be engraved, and the public were to draw their conclusions from them and the reports given by the owners and milkers, and see how Guenon would stand the test. And what were the believing or non-believing commissioners to do? Supervise the taking down of all this? How, at once, this shows Mr. Hardin to know little or nothing of the system! Like Mr. Reeder, he did not know that Guenon assigns many other things to be thought of to form a correct opinion! Was it more proof to be told by the owner all that any one could know about the cow, and then say that corresponds with the escutcheon? Or did it put the system to a severer test, to say to the owner, don’t tell me a word, and then proceed to tell him all about a cow you never saw, simply from examining her escutcheon? In one case, you are assisted to define the escutcheon by the knowledge given you. In the other case, you define the cow’s character by only the knowledge you can get from the escutcheon. No better proof can be given of Mr. Hardin’s lack of practical knowledge of the system.

Another objection he makes, and repeats several times, as being a very strong one with him, is, why did not Guenon, and why do not the commissioners, go to work and buy up all the best cows and sell them at a profit, and thus get very rich. His cry is, why don’t they make plenty of money out of it, if it is so valuable? Simply, because neither of them are in that business, or care to be. But Mr. Harvey, a manager of the Delaware county almshouse, in one year from taking this position, changed the cows there, and increased the yield twofold from the same number of cows, and has bought and sold all the steers and cows on his large farm for many years solely by this system, and has grown wealthy.

He says in another article “feeling the modesty that naturally attaches itself to benighted ignorance,” he “started out in the city in search of some one who was learned on these subjects.” He found “a professor in our medical institute,” “one of our most learned physicians,” and they proceed together to canvass Professors Magne and Arnold’s theories and facts about the formation of the escutcheon. The result of two such wise heads (or of “benighted ignorance”) coming together, was that neither of them ever heard of Professor Magne, and that his dictum was “opposed to all the teachings of physiology.” The learned professor knowing as much about a cow as he did of physiology. And it is such stuff as this which forms the arguments of Mr. Hardin. Professor Salmon in his essay on Contested Dairy Questions effectually settles these “learned” men.

We have devoted enough space to a writer, who finds it so easy to tear down, but is never able to build up, a doubting Thomas, whose only mode of judging a cow, he says is a crumple horn, a large udder, and to test the milk every Monday for one year. What an amount of money the farmers of America would lose annually if they followed his rules, and what an amount they would save by following Guenon’s rules!

The following valuable essay is from the Country Gentleman of August 7, 1879:

Contested Dairy Questions.

By D. E. Salmon, D. V. M.

Several of our prominent dairy writers have been lately discussing the more complicated questions of their department in a very energetic and decided, if not in a scrupulously exact manner. Now, if these questions are worth the time and space necessary for their presentation at length, they are certainly of sufficient importance to receive candid and perfectly truthful treatment; and, though these writers may not have intended to give wrong impressions, their teachings can hardly be considered, in several respects, as representing the present condition of knowledge on these points.

Magne’s Theory of the Escutcheon.—In Mr. Eastburn Reeder’s essay on the escutcheon—which is a valuable paper, though marred in the above respects—there is an attempt at scientific argument in order to ridicule the accepted value of the milk-mirror; and the assumed facts on which this argument is based, are presented in such a positive manner that they will probably be accepted, without further investigation, by the majority of readers unless contested at once. The writer has hesitated to do this in the hope that it would be done by some one else; but the truth is of too much consequence to allow the matter to pass entirely without notice.

The first point to which I will call attention is the attempt to dispute Magne’s opinion that the hair turns in the direction in which the arteries ramify, and that the reversed hair on the udder and adjacent parts indicates the termination of the arteries which supply the udder with blood. When these arteries are large, he holds, they extend through the udder upward and onward, ramifying on the skin beyond the udder, and giving the hair the peculiar appearance which distinguishes it from the rest of the surface. If these arteries are very small, they are not likely to extend much beyond the udder, and, hence, form a small escutcheon; consequently, a small escutcheon indicates a feeble supply of blood, and little material to make milk of.

Now how is this combatted? The first argument is that “when Mr. Hardin showed this paragraph to one of the most learned medical professors at Louisville, Kentucky, he at once wanted to know who this Magne was, and declared his name unknown in the annals of medical science.” What are we to think of such a statement as that? Magne—member of the French Academy of Medicine, formerly director of the Alfort Veterinary School and professor of Lyons—unknown in the annals of medicine!

We are then asked if the arteries are not the same in all cows, and are told that we might as well expect more bones or muscles as more arteries. If Mr. Reeder will turn to Chauveau’s Anatomy—one of the best authorities in the world—he will find, in general remarks on arteries, the following statement, which I translate, not having the English edition: “Arteries very often present variations in their deposition, which the surgeon should keep in mind. These variations ordinarily concern the number, the point of origin, and the volume of the vessels.” And if he will go through the list of arteries, he will find examples given of each of these variations.