Mr. Todd: I said in my paper that I advised farmers not to keep too many. We do not keep to exceed 200; sometimes we get more, of course. The smaller the flock, the better they will do, unless you keep them on pastures similar to the way English people keep a large number of them on a piece of ground, and they clean every thing up and go on to another piece. They get around in about 2 weeks and begin over again. Something on the principle of small flocks.

Mr. Shaffer: Speaking about sheep cleaning up: I acquired a piece of ground that had run down, and everybody said—my father had been a pretty good farmer - you will never get that like your father's farm. But you would not believe what a change our sheep have made; any sheep would do the same. Where we had sheep enough to eat up all the weeds and they didn't get to blossom, they have thinned it out wonderfully; it is generally remarked the difference there is in that farm. The sheep did that; I didn't do it.

Mr. Todd: If you will salt the Canada thistles, the sheep will exterminate them as can be done in no other way.

At this point the institute adjourned to meet Wednesday at 9:30 A. M.

MORNING SESSION, WEDNESDAY, January 13, 1892.

The institute was called to order by President Levering at 10 o'clock A. M., who said:

Gentlemen: The time has arrived to renew the exercises of the institute. The first thing on the program for this morning is a paper upon the subject "A special rather than a general purpose breed of cattle," by O. E. Bradfute, Cedarville, Greene county. Mr. Bradfute is sick and not able to be here, but he has sent his paper, which will be read by Mr. Fleming.

Mr. Fleming: Mr. Bradfute sent this paper with the request that it be read. I am not very familiar with the gentleman's writing, and therefore may not be able to do justice to the paper, but I will do the best I can.

Mr. Fleming then read Mr. Bradfute's paper, entitled "A special rather than a general purpose breed of cattle," and which was as follows:

The careful observer could have seen rather a strange sight at any of our leading live stock exhibitions last fall. Two cows standing almost side by side; the one said to be about the best milk cow in the State, the other about the best beef cow in the State. The one so poor in flesh that a beef-producer would be ashamed to have her seen on his place, while the dairyman can see no earthly use in any man keeping such a useless cow as the other. In appearance they are so different that if we had a visitor from the moon and each owner in turn show him his animal and name it cow, our new visitor would be likely to remark to a third man that "those two men seemed to be laboring

under the impression that they had found a fool." So different are they in fact that many of those things which are considered elements of perfection in the one are very undesirable qualities when found in the other. Still stranger is the fact that these two cows have been fed, since they were calves, identically the same kinds of food and in almost exactly the same proportion. It is not our purpose at this time to enter into a scientific discussion of how these things can be. They exist as facts, and we accept them as we find them, the results of the "survival of the fittest," the modern highly specialized cow. So we have two great classes of cattle-beef and dairy.

Our subject, however, supposes another class, a middle or general purpose class, which some say belongs to both of the other classes; others say to either; and still others to neither. That such a middle class can not lead to the highest success it is our purpose at this time to show. While on the other hand, it is to the benefit of the general farmer to take up those breeds which represent that special object in which he is most interested.

Life is too short to deal with the world in general, and we must confine ourselves to some well defined line of action. This is an age of specialized ideas. The world is not asking for general purpose men, but men who can do some one thing better than any one else. Our colleges and universities are no longer dealing in general education, but urge upon every student the necessity of selecting some special course. A man is no longer asked to be a "Jack at all trades and master of none." Our machinery is all made with this idea in view. The successful farmer no longer raises a little of everything and a very poor quality of each but confines himself to some special line of produce.

This is but the outcome of the schooling of centuries of experience. And it has eroed its way through the lives and beings of that class of animals over which man has control, better than one might at first suppose, and man finds himself to-day surrounded by animals peculiarly adapted to his many and diversified wants; but it is somewhat difficult to make them fit some other place. For example, a bantam rooster may be a thing of beauty and a joy forever" strutting about the poultry yard, but he is a very poor excuse on a platter before a family of six hungry persons. A fox hound may be a valuable animal for a hunter, but he is very poor property for a shepherd. A Sunol may be a delight to a Bonner, but he would be slightly out of place in Terry's potato patch. A Bissou's Bell or a Pauline Paule would not bring over one cent per pound in Chicago stock yards, and a Lady Cecil or a Bonny Maid would be of as little worth in a Now York dairy. Is the world, then, all gone wrong, and should cattle men apart from all ethers refuse to accept the general principles laid down by the world for its chickens, its dogs, its sheep, its horses and its men? Is it, then, a mistake to breed cattle for the spedal purpose of milk or beef? Let us examine into this general purpose case a little any Way.

It is presumed that men raise cattle for money and not for convenience. And first we urge the point that it is impossible to maintain a general purpose standard, for as often as the market for butter or the market for beef changes materially, the standard will change. Your general purpose farmer always jumps where he thinks the most money is coming in. During the last few years of depression of beef prices many a man who had his herd graded up to the point where his cows would produce steers of a fairly good beef type, and is now laboring with all his might to convert this herd into good dairy cows, will, next year or year after, when beef cattle again command good prices, And himself like the dog after the rabbit, who thought he would be sure to catch it if ho were only on the other side of the fence, and after a hard struggle finally succeeds in getting over just in time to see the rabbit slip through a crack in the fence to the other ade. Each of you can go home and count your neighbors by the scores who have kept up just such a race for twenty, thirty or even fifty years, and to-day they have a class of attle the cows of which sell for $20 to $30, because they are only moderate milkers, and their steers sell for three cents a pound because they are only moderate beefers.

Such has always been the result, and always will be so long as it is possible in six years, or three generations of cattle life, to use a bull of such character on a herd of the

Anost dairy cows, as to produce a group of cows that will not give milk enough to nourish lamb; or on the other hand, to use a bull of the opposite type and from the finest beef cows in the land produce steers which will not bring two cents per pound in our stock yards. With these statements in view the general purpose class of cattle are a hindrance rather than a help to the highest attainments in cattle life. Our general purpose friends will pardon the statement, but I must tell the truth, and say the common scrub cattle all over this land are the result of a century's experience in producing general purpose cattle. They are either that or nothing-may be the latter. The highest attainments in cattle life have all come through the special breeds. You may represent cattle life as two long ladders set up in the shape of a V, one leading to highest milk possibilities, the other to highest beef possibilities. They are in common at the bottom, but they widen so much at the top that no animal or class of animals can ever hope to place her feet on the top round of the one ladder and her hind feet on the top of the other. However, do not let me lead you so far as to believe that the one class can leave the other entirely. The milk cow must have some muscles in order to move from place to place, although I must confess that she is getting pretty close to a frame work of bones with a hide stretched over it and filled with machinery for the conversion of food into milk. The per cent. of edible meat in her case is getting pretty low. Neither can the beef cow entirely overlook at least enough milk to nourish her calf. Beef men have not yet reached that point where it is either convenient or profitable to use the “wet nurse" system. I believe the typical beef cow should be able to reproduce herself, and to do this she must be able to furnish sufficient food for her calf until it be comes of sufficient age to take other nourishment in such quantities as may be necessary to keep up rapid growth and production of flesh. However, it is not necessary that sho be a Shadeland Boon 2d, for I fancy that 122 lbs. of milk daily would slightly distort the shape of a typical beef calf. Nor would she need to keep up her milk record to the extent of 30,318 lbs. a year like a Pietertje 2d, as the calf would likely become discouraged before the year was up.

There are plenty of splendid milk cows in almost every herd of beef cattle, but I would call your attention to the fact that neither they nor their descendants are generally called upon to wear the honors in a show yard of beef cattle. I was once careless enough to allow myself to serve on a committee to judge Holsteins at an important local fair, and after the show was over the fellow who got left had the kindness to inform mo that any fool would have known better than to select a heifer showing as many beef points as the one I had selected. That man is an admitted good judge of Holsteins, too.

Let us now look at a few specific examples and see how our general ideas come out. In a recent number of the Breeders' Gazette we have the following note from the Chicago stock yards: "Blood tells! The difference between the selling qualities of the oldfashioned cattle and the pure-bred was strikingly exemplified last Friday in the sales of twenty head of the former, averaging 1,852 lbs., at $4.25, and eight head of the latter, averaging 1,611 lbs., at $7.15. The latter were Polled Angus. Here is a difference of $36.47 per head in favor of the high grades." Now let us analyze this statement a little. It will be noted, first, that the $4.25 cattle averaged nearly 250 lbs. each the most, indicating that they were from six to twelve months the oldest. Moreover, that age and class of cattle, according to actual results of careful feeders, would take about as much more feed to fit them for market as it did in the case of the $7.15 cattle, making in reality about $70 per head difference between the two grades of steers. Now it is not at all improbable that the dams of the cheaper steers are better milkers than the dams of the better steers, but had it occurred to you about how much butter of such quality as you could get from one of those cows it would take to make a net profit of $70 per year on her?

This is not an overdrawn case. How many in this audience who do not keep the special beef breeds are producing steers that will weigh 1,500 lbs. at two years of age or will bring over four cents per pound at the stock yards? If you are not producing better steers than that, then your cows must each make you a net profit of over $30

year from her milk or you are losing money, for you might have cows which will produce 1,500-lb. steers in their two-year old form and sell at 6 cents per pound.

But you don't raise steers to feed; you sell them as calves to feeders. Well, I feel sorry for both you and the feeder. You are both getting left. You are breeding your cows with a milk idea all the time, and no man can make a success with the kind of calves you sell him; and you should find cows for the special purpose, which will give you three times the net profit you now get; so you could afford to knock the calves in the head and still make more money than you are now doing.

Right here let me say that one of the principal obstacles in the way of accepting the special purpose dairy cow is the disposition of her bull calves. There seems to be but two methods generally accepted-one is to knock them in the head, the other is to feed them by hand until old enough for veal and then sell them to butchers. Either method is more profitable than growing them into 2-cent steers. The average general purpose cow kept by the Ohio farmer will not produce 200 pounds of butter per year, for which the average price obtained is less than 20 cents yer lb., or $40 a year. She would not have to be a very wonderful special purpose cow to produce 300 pounds of 30-cent butter or $90 a year. The cost of feed and labor being in each case the same, we have a net difference of $50 a year. Suppose each of those cows is kept for ten years, and you have a difference of $500 in favor of the special purpose cow. Can not the owner of that cow afford to knock the bull calves in the head?

But here comes one of our general purpose friends who tells you that he is producing these better kind of cows. Perhaps he is, but I give it as my candid opinion that in just the proportion he is advancing in dairy achievements, in just the same ratio is he retrograding from the beef standard. That cow is no longer a general purpose cow. I leave it to the American show yards and the fat stock markets to vindicate the statement.

It can hardly be said that the subject has been gone over unless the modern pet, the general purpose Shorthorn cow, has been touched upon. Let that question be put in such a shape that it will answer itself. Suppose you go to Chicago and spend a week at the Dexter Park sales of pure bred cattle, during the sale season. You will note one fact that whenever a large, well-bred beefy cow comes into the ring, even though she may have scarcely any udder, she goes under the hammer at $100 or over, while when a large, fine udder comes in, bringing a fairly good general purpose cow with it, the whole business, udder and all, brings about $50 or less. You will come home thoroughly convinced that there is at least one class of Shorthorn men raising cattle for convenience and not for money.

Now, in closing, let me say that if you are going to keep cattle with success, I believe you should decide upon one or the other of the two great fields of beef or milk, and then get cattle to suit the field. You have a number of breeds in the milk field from which to select, notably, the Holstein, Jersey, and the Red Polls. The latter on account of their hornless heads, and their recent milk and butter tests at the Ohio State Fair are rapidly gaining popularity. In the beef field you have about an equal number of breeds from which to select, principally the Shorthorns, Herefords, and the Polled AberdeenAngus. For myself, I prefer the latter, not only on account of their hornless qualities, but from actual tests in the feed yard, where on the same feed they not only made a greater gain, but when ready for market found more buyers and commanded a higher price than either of the other breeds. They are to-day commanding a higher price than any other beef breeds, both in this country and in England, not only at breeders' sales but at the stock yards as well. Having selected your breed, stick to it through thick and thin, and the time will be hastened when the milk from our dairy cows will be cream and the cream will all be butter, and our beef cattle will all be young and fat and their beef will be juicy, sweet and tender.

President Levering: According to the program, this paper is to be followed by a discussion, to be opened by Mr. J. McLain Smith, who, as is

known to all of you, is the champion of the general purpose cattle. Mr. Smith, I believe, is not present. He was expected here, but has not reported. If there is any gentleman present, who has heard this very interesting paper, and desires to make any remarks by way of criticism or discussion, we will now be glad to hear from him.

Mr. Foster: I am sorry Mr. Smith is not present, as we had anticipated an instructive talk from him. I see, however, that Mr. Gilbert, of Richland, N. Y., is with us, and I am sure we will all take it as a favor if he will give us the benefit of his experience on this subject, without trenching on his paper.

Mr. Gilbert: While I have prepared no paper, yet the few notes I have made, and which is the next subject to claim our attention, "The Dairyman's Cow and her Keep," will be in the general line of the subject now under discussion.

Mr. Foster: I thought you could say a few words without trenching upon your paper, was my suggestion.

Mr. Gilbert: I am a believer in general purpose cows. You take our dairy cow of to-day and it is wholly an artificial animal made by the intelligent breeder. She was taken from an animal that scarcely gave milk enough to keep her young for a short time and has been developed into the typical cow of to-day. I shall indorse a good deal that this gentleman has said in his paper in relation to keeping a beef cow and breeding for special purpose. I think that is the line that all farmers are working for. You take the example of the horse. If a man wants a drafthorse, he doesn't go and buy a trotter. The same principle applies to cattle. If we want milk cattle, we have something that is difficult to fatten, in fact our best dairy cows are almost impossible to keep up and keep in condition. Our very best milkers are the worst looking so far as condition of flesh is concerned. You take a cow which takes on flesh readily and she puts her fat on her back instead of in the milk pail. She is not a profitable animal for the dairy. We can still go further than that. There are two classes of dairy cows; one is the butter and the other is the milk cow. You can produce milk from one at a profit while she would be a loss in the butter dairy. On the other hand there are plenty of cows profitable in the butter-dairy that don't give milk enough for a milk-dairy or for a cheese-factory; hence the dairyman must adopt the animal best suited to his business. You don't want a beef cow for milking, neither do you want a dairy cow to fatten. Neither will be profitable, but they are all right in their special spheres. I have a few hastily prepared notes that touch upon this point in the paper which I understand I am expected to deliver.