Cattl

CATTL In the United States the term cat tle is usually applied to the ox species, though sometimes to all hofned animals. In England they are termed neat cattle. In a primary sense however, the term cattle included not only horned animals, but horses and asses and, it has been supposed, swine. We should use it in its distinc tive acceptation to mean the genus boa, or the ox tribe. The distinctive features of domestic cat tle are smooth, round, more or less curved horns, forehead flat, longer than it is broad, the horns placed at the two extremities of a projecting line at the top of the forehead. In all domestic cattle, . except in certain well fixed breeds, the colors vary exceedingly, no two animals being alike, varying from pure white to jet black, running througk all the shades of brown, red, dun, gray, and blue, including brindled, mottled, piebald, spotted and flecked. The Devons are the purest and most uniform in color, being light and mahogany bay. The Short-Horns, originally mottled and flecked, or spotted are, of late years, being bred more to self colors. The Ayrshires run to roan and piebald; the Holstein to black and white definitely marked: the Kyloes, to black, black red, and brindle, and the Herefords to red with white faces and flanks, and the Alderueys to yellow red and black, or fawn col or, with black points. In the Cam pagna there is a breed of large gray and mouse-colored cattle. In Calabria there is a breed of snow-white cattle. The so-called wild cattle of Chillingham are white or dingy white, with black noses, horns and hoofs, the ears tipped either black or red. In Hun gary there is a curious breed of gray, or dark blue cattle, with immense, wide spread horns. The Hindoo or Brahmin cattle have short re flected horns, large pendulous ears, an enormous hump, and a dewlap of solid, fatty matter. Their hair is exceedingly sleek and fsmOoth, and they never seem to be affected by the most in tense heat of that oven-like climate. As showing some thing 'of the cattle of the last century in England, and by compari son with im proved stock of the present day, as illustrated in other portions of this work, we giye cuts, repro duced from a work of the last century, ting Ayrshire, Devons and Hereford cattle, three of the most celebrated of the old of land, as they were known years ago. The Dur hams, now called Short-Horn, were among the most noted of the beef breeds of England in the latter part of the last century. The New Leices ter, during its short-lived celebrity, it having soon degenerated after the death of Bakewell, must have been a magnificent beef animal if we may credit the illustrations that have come down to us. The cuts illustrating the New Leicester and Dur ham of the last century, will show what they were like. These and the ones preceding them in this article were reproduced by photo-engravings,from , the originals of the last century. Where cattle first originated, or when first domesticated, is lost in obscurity nor can you now find the animal in a wild state, except when escaped from domes ticity. It is indeed recorded that Jubal, the son of Lamech, was the father of such as have cattle, but the term might mean other domestic animals, as the sheep or goat. That horned cattle were early domesticated is evident from the fact that the ancient Egyptians worshiped the bull, and the traditions of every Celtic nation, acknowledge the cow as among the earliest servants of man, and represent her as having divine attributes. L. F. Allen, in American Cattle, gives their history and introduction into America in the following words : The genus Bos, as a domesticated animal, has been the useful and cherished companion of man from the earliest date of history, either sacred or profane. That they were highly valued in days most ancient, we may know, from their being objects of labor, sacrifice, and worship, by differ ent nations and people. They were esteemed articles of wealth and sources of prosperity, and were probably cared for and cultivated with equal solicitude as any other domestic animal attached to husbandry, or of use as food. What was their normal condition as to race or breed, as we understand races and breeds, little or nothing is known, nor is it necessary that we do know. That they were then, in their chief essen tials, as now, we have no reason to doubt; and that they may have been improved, or that they deteriorated in condition as civilization progress ed, or waned, with the people who held them in subjection, we have no reason to question. The hieroglyphics of Egypt, most ancient in date, rude as were their representations of man, things, and animals, give us no accurate likeness, of what they might have been among that ingeni ous and wonderful people, and they were proba bly as highly cultivated among them as any where else in contemporary times. The earliest representations or pictures we have, give them rugged forms, enormous length of upright, or spreading horns, and a gaunt appearance. climates of the East permitted them to live i throughout the year in the open air, and we may well suppose that nature supplied them with the rough, long hair necessary for their protection, so usually represented in their portraits by the artists of more civilized nations. In the world, among the more highly cultivated classes of society, in polite literature it has been consid ered vulgar to speak of cattle, or illustrate them • other than as appendages to scenery, landscape, and rural representations among a rude and un cultivated people. So, too, with artists. The latter have composed cattle scenes, and intro duced them as accessory to landscapes in their paintings, and so grossly have they misrepresented their forms for artistic effect, as to caricature and give the ugliest appearance to them. Claude Lorraine, Salvator Rosa, Poussin, and others of the most celebrated schools of landscape painting of olden time, as well as Paul Potter, Van Ostade, and others of more modern date, made their cows, bulls, and oxen vulgar and uncouth in shape, and wretched in condition. Even land scape painters of the present day, with a silly affectation of art, will put nothing resembling the noble contour of our improved cattle into a picture, but select some unhappy brute, depleted with poverty, and unkempt as a wild buffalo in appearance, to give piquancy and effect to their drawings. For such slanderers of these noble animals, we have no respect whatever, nor for the taste of, artists in the way of cattle, while yielding an unqualified admiration to their fidelity and skill in other subjects. Our modern animal painters have done better. Landseer and. Herring, among the English artists, have accorded somewhat of justice to their objects, while some of the Continental and American artists in that line, have drawn our improved domestic animals—cattle as well as others ' with admirable truth and fairness. The ancients had a high respect and admiration'for their cattle. We cannot admire the Egyptian worship of their ox, apis—a magnificent tomb of which has been recently exhumed—nor do we look with com placency on the present worship of the Brahma bull, which has been from time immemorial, an , object of Pagan idolatry in India; but it is -evident that these subjects of adoration originated in a most devout appreciation of the admirable and useful qualities of the genus to which they belonged. The author of the book of Job, which the eminent sacred chronologist, Dr. Hales, dates back to the year 2,337 before the Christian Era— the author was Job himself, or his cotemporaries—had a most poetic apprecia tion of the value of domestic animals. He makes Job, in the days of his revived prosperity, the owner of one thousand yoke of oxen, in the enumeration of his great wealth of goods and chattels. Jeremiah—B. C. 628 years—in one of his' prophesies, speaks of a fair heifer. Among the Pagan writers, Homer, 1800 years before the Christian Era, celebrates the noble bullocks with golden knobs, or balls, on the tips of their horns, and describes the manner of the artisan in put ting them on. Among the heathen deities, Juno is named as ox-eyed, in those, clear and liquid features of her countenance. Virgil, who wrote his ,Georgiacs just before the birth of Christ, cele brates the beautiful cattle of the Roman Cam pagnas, and their value in the agriculture of the people. Oxen were used for labor in husbandry, and more or less in commerce, in all countries where neat cattle were kept, and could endure the climate well, as being the most convenient beast of burden. It is probable that they were bred in their best estate by those who used them, and the cows were cultivated for dairy and household uses in the family. As they spread West' and North into the higher latitudes and elevations of Europe, they somewhat changed their characters, and became, as now known there, acclimated and fitted to their new condi tions, and inured to the habits of the people who kept them. We may suppose, too, that in the severer climates they were afforded somewhat of shelter, and more pains-taking in food and treat ment, than in the milder latitudes where they had long ranged, and with such increased care, improved in quality and appearance. They took, possibly, somewhat different shapes, and con formed, more or less, to the uses to which they were subjected. The Moors of Spain reared great herds of neat cattle, and from them descended the dominant races of Spanish herds. They were there the progenitors of the savage and headstrong bulls still sacrificed in the arena of bull-fights and picadores. The Gauls _of France, bred the gentler, and more economical forms of cattle, adapted to a better husbandry. By what gradual, peculiar, or natural progresses these European cattle acquired their present dis tinctive characteristics, we have no definite information: History is either altogether silent or obscure on these subjects, and we have no better guide than conjecture to inform us. Throughout Western Europe numerous different breeds exist, of diverse qualities, all more or less useful for the purposes to which they are ap plied, and profitable to the people who breed and rear them. Italy, France, Spain, Switzerland, Holland, and other northern coun tries, each have their peculiar national breeds, while England, Scotland atid Ireland have many, varieties widely divergent in character and appearance. Indeed, it is not necessary, unless for speculation or curiosity, that we know the particulars of their history or progress, inasmuch as we, in America, are already in possession of the best breeds of Western Europe, fully answer ing our own immediate purposes, and which have been successfully naturalized on our soil. It has been said, or conjectured, by some specu-, lative antiquarians, that neat cattle were intro duced to the Continent of America by the Northmen, who are Supposed to have made a descent on to the coast from North-western Eu rope some centuries before the discovery of the Continent by Columbus. This, however, is sim ply a conjecture, as no cattle were known of here before they were brought` out by the Spanish and Portuguese emigrants, a few years after the voy ages of Columbus. In the year 1519, the Span iard, Cortez, discovered Mexico. He first made a landing at Vera Cruz, and not long afterwards penetrated to the City, of Mexico, then ruled by Montezuma. The object of Cortez and his party was conquest. They were accompanied by a troop of horses, on which his cavalry was mounted for military purposes; but we have no account of any cattle in his expedition. Mexico soon became a colony of Spain, and was settled by emigrants from that country. Their first object was gold, and trade with the natives, and to their acquisitions followed agriculture, which brought in cattle from Spain. We may suppose that cattle were introduced there as early as the year 1525, and in the mild climate and abundant pasturage which the country afforded, they rapidly increased. As Mexico became peopled and spread her population along the coast, and into the interior, in the course of time Texas was reached, and there were spread the foundations for the immense herd of Mexican, or, as we now call them, Texan cattle. Cali fornia was afterwards settled by the Spanish Mexicans, who drove their cattle thither and, in time, scattered over it numerous herds. In what is now the United States, the first English settlement 'was made in Virginia, on the James river, in the year 1607, by a colony of an hundred men, which, by suffering, disease, and want of food, was reduced within a year, to thirty-eight. In 1609, by new emigrants, the colony was increased to five hundred persons; but in a few months they were reduced by death to sixty. Many cows were carried frOm the West India Islands to Virginia in 1610, and 1611. In suc ceeding years more adventurers came out, but in 1622, three hundred and forty-seven men, women and children were massacred by Indians, and the colony, in effect, broken up. Whether their cattle were also destroyed, we have no account; but the settlement was soon after renewed under better auspices and protection, and neat cattle were further introduced and propagated. New York was first settled in the year 1614, by the Dutch. That colony, after some vicissitudes, prospered. The first importation of neat cattle there, is said to have been in the year 1625, from the mother country, Holland, and they rapidly increased in numbers, both in breeding and fur ports from which they sailed. In all probability, numerous importations of cattle were annually made into the several colonies, during successive years, as the emigrants came in rapidly, and,the few early importations, with their increase, were insufficient to supply their wants. That cattle multiplied, both by natural increase and impor tation, is evident. We see it recorded, that in the year 1636, a party_ of emigrants went out to settle the town of orthboro, Massachusetts, thirty miles west of Boston, and in a company of one hundred men, women and children, they drove with them one hundred and sixty cattle— and that was but twelve years after the first importation into the colony. From these diverse

and miscellaneous beginnings, our native cattle originated. Of what distinctive breeds they were selected, if selected with reference to breed at all, we have no information, nor. at this dis tance of time, can we be at all certain. Distinct tiler importation. In 1620, the English Plymouth colony landed in Massachusetts. In 1623, further English colonies came out and settled at Boston, and in New Hampshire. In 1624, the -first arrival of cattle entered Massachusetts Bay. These were soon followed by other arrivals. New Jersey was settled by the Dutch in 1624, and Delaware by the Swedes in 1627, who cattle with them. The early records of gtew Hampshire state that in the years 1681, '32 and '33, Captain John Mason made several impor tations of cattle into that State from Denmark, to kapply the Danish emigrants who had settled one Piscataqua river. These Danish cattle were coarse, large beasts, and yellowish in color. Jettlements were made in Maryland in 1633; in Rffirth and South Carolina in 1660 and 1670; and inTennsylvania in 1682, all by the English, who her with the first settlers, or soon after, brought eattle over, chiefly from the countries nearest the breeds did then exist, well defined in their char acteristics, both in England and Scotland, and we are to presume, that needy and necessitous as the emigrants mostly were—going out for con science sake, as many of them did, and in a hope to better their fortunes withal—they paid little regard to breed or race in their cattle, so that they gave milk, performed labor, and propagated their kind. As the colonists grew in numbers, and prospered in gear, their cattle, now become a leading branch of husbandry, aided much in their subsistence. Families of considerable wealth from home, began to add their numbers to the earlier emigrants, and brought with them domestic stock of various kinds, provided them for age, and gave them shelter, and in some instan ces, probably, selected choice specimens from favorite breeds in the localities from whence they came, with which to improve those previously imported, or their descendants, the then native herds. But in a new country, harassed by hos tile savages, difficult of locomotion and inter course with each other in distant settlements, their cattle were localized and confined to their own immediate neighborhoods. Pushing out into neW districts only with the adventurous parties forming settlements, where they could, of neces sity, pay little attention to selection or improve ment in their herds, they took such as they had, or such as they could get, at the least possi ble cost, as browse for the first few years was their principal forage in winter, leeks in spring, and coarse grass in summer and autumn kir pasturage. The best they could do was to pro vide food for their families, and let their cattle shift for themselves. We presume however, that the earlier colonists, having become well settled and thrifty in circumstances, cared well for their herds and measurably improved their quality. Thus, ,thadoubtedly, stood the condition of the neat cattle of the• colonies down into the years 1700, and after. We have accounts that, as the merchants of the sea-coast towns grew rich, some enterprising ones made importations of choice breeds from England, which were driven into the country neighborhoods, and very con siderably benefited their common stock. In the year 1608, Quebec, in Lower Canada, was founded by the French, and soon afterwards, colonists came in considerable numbers from the western coast If France, and brought with them the little Normandy, or Brittany cattle, closely allied in blood, appearance and quality, to the Alderney cows of the Channel Islands. Their , descendants are now propagated in all Lower Canada, and throughout the many French seig nories in large numbers, forming their principal stock of neat cattle. They proved excellent milk ers, hardy, easy of keep, and profitable for the dairy. They are also tolerable for the yoke, and for beef. In their remote distance, and limited intercourse with the people of the English colo nies; it is not probable that their herds became intermixed. We have no accounts of the peculiar characteristics of the cattle then there. After nearlytwo hundred years of acclimation and breeding they show no relations with the New stock of our Northern States. As showing the gradual improvement in the weight of cattle from the year 1700, and the rapid advance therein within the last fifty .years, the following will be interesting: In the year 1710 the average weight of beef cattle of Smithfield was 370 pounds each. In a report, of a select committee of the House of Commons in 1795 it is stated that since 1732 their cattle have increased in size or weight on an (average one-quarter or twenty-five per cent. mak ing the weight at that time (1794) 462 pounds. Few animals then were fatted, even to this light weight, under five years olp, while thirty years latei' they were considered ripe at four years. At this last period we find a very striking improve ment in the weight of cattle at Smithfield, 656 pounds being the average—an increase of nearly forty per cent. in thirty-five years; showing that the efforts for the improvement of the breeds of cattle were attended with far greater success than at first. Steadily within the last fifty years has maturity been attained earlier and earlier, so that now we have yearlings that will dress heavier than the four year olds of fifty years ago. Indeed, now, some of the improved breeds may be fat tened ripe at the age of two years. According to the, census of 1870 the number of cattle in the United States and territories, not including Texas and New Mexico, was 24,000,000. Those of Texas and New Mexico, were computed at 4,000, 000. Of the improved breeds introduced into the United States the Herefords and Short-Horns are deservedly the most popular for beef and early maturity. The Devons as working cattle and in the quality of their flesh are acknowledged to be superior to any other. Of dairy cattle the Ayr shire originally brought from Scotland, the Jersey from the Channel Islands, and the Dutch and Holsteins from Holland, and Holstein, have merits of exceeding excellence. The Ayrshire and the Dutch and Holsteins are noted for large messes of milk, rich in caseine, and the Jersey and Guernsey as cows giving milk exceedingly rich in cream and consequently in butter. A writer in the report of the Commissioner of Agriculture for 1877, gives a statement of the early importation of the beef breeds of cattle into the United States in which we find that the imported breeds more especially valued on account of beef-pro- - ducing qualities are 'the Hereford, the Devon, and the Short-Horn. The first Herefords were brought to Kentucky by Henry clay, who was a great admirer and patron of fine stock, in 1816. But, notwithstanding their well-defined excel lences and great superiority over the cattle com mon to this country,' for some reason, not wholly explained, this breed has not been as widely dis. tributed nor attracted the public attention that its undoubted merits deserve. The race is highly prized in England, where, in some grazing dis- • tricts, it is held in equal esteem with the Short Horn, which it nearly equals in size and weight. It is a distinct race, however, purely bred, it is claimed, from a time long anterior to the develop ment of the Short-Horn. The Hereford, as gen erally seen, is red in color, with white face, and frequently with white along the back and under neath the body. In England there are other vari eties, presenting a mottled face and a gray or, roan body, which is deemed to be the original type. In that country, according to an English writer, the truest standard of form is still consid ered by many to be that of the mottled-faced breed, although, in other respects, the white-faced is undoubtedly superior; and as regards the form' of the shoulders the breed stands pre-eminent, and produces comparatively little coarse meat in those parts; 'the hips, loin, and rump are equally good. The ribs do not spring out so wide as some breeds, but the sides can scarcely be found fault with; the twist ip unusually full and the chest well ex panded. As a milker the Hereford cow is not highly valued. The fird importation of Devons from England was made in 1817 into Maryland, and another in the succeeding year by Hon. Rufus King, of New York. Others have followed at intervals, finding a permanent place principally in the Eastern States. As in the case of the Here fords, they have not occupied as great a place in the public mind as their merits would fully war rant. But there are nevertheless a number of fine herds in the country, the purity of which has been maintained. It is claimed for this race that, as a distinctive breed, it is the most ancient in the United Kingdom. Mr. George Turner, an agri cultural authority in Great Britain, said of the Devon tribe some years ago: There is scarcely any breed of cattle so rich and mellow in its touch, so silky and fine in its hair, and altogether so handsome in appearance as the North Devon; added to which they have agreater proportion or e weight in the most valuable rints, and less in the coarse, than any other bree , and also consume less food in its production. These animals seem wanting in nothing except the size and weight which distinguish some other breeds, and which are therefore more sought after on account of larger gross profits. But, the suggestion is made, large animals eat more than small ones, and it is still a vexed question, both wall regard to sheep and cattle, whether small first-quality animals are not more profitable to fatten theft those with more bulky frames that produce coarser meat and a larger proportion on the worst joints. The Devon is red in color; in size, medium. For centuries bred, for the most part, in the hill regions of Eng land, with little care as to shelter or prepared fod der, the race inherits stamina and hardy constitu the River,Tee4, and beyond it, the cattle assumed a less gross and unwieldy form, but were still a very tall race, of varied colors, with horns of medium length, but which might be termed short with relation to the same parts in the Long-Horn breed. The race now distinctively known as Short Horns is derived through the cattle of the Tees• Valley, upon which the brothers Charles and Robert Coiling instituted breeding experiments about the year 1777. Theirthull Hubback was the progenitor of this now celebrated breed. The first importation to this country was made as early as 1785, and others have followed in more rapid succession that of Col. Saunders into Kentucky in 1817. They now very largely outnumber all other improved breeds in the United States, the Herds-Book showing a record of more than 60,000 well-bred animals. In England it is asserted that nearly two-thirds of the animals sent to Lon tions, and possesses milking traits in good degree, and easy of improvement through cultivation for that object. Prof. Lowe, in his work on The Domesticated Animals of the British Isles, •throws some light on the origin of the now admirable race of Short-Horns. He says: While Ireland and the western parts of England have been possessed for an unknown period of a race of cattle having long horns, and furnished with thick skins and abun dant hair, fitted to protect the animals from long and continued rains, the eastern and drier dis tricts toward the German Ocean have been inhab ited by varieties of cattle having thinner shorter hair, and horns comparatively short. In the fens of Lincolnshire and the other tracts of alluvial country toward the Wash, the cattle were of great bulk and coarse figure, and had, usually, a dingy color of the skin, and short, blunt horns. More inland, and following the course northward of the vale of Trent, and thence across the Ouse, and through the 'central plains of Yorshire and don are Short-Horns or their crosses. Returning to the improvement in cattle, the illustrations given in this article, show some British breeds as they were delineated in the early part of the cen tury. It will be seen that the Ayrshires, Devons and the Herefords, are the only breeds that'would be at all recognized in the improved breeds of to-day, and the Herefords only in their general sym metry and color. The cuts will be interesting as a means of comparison with the best animals as seen in our show rings at the agricultural fairs of to-day, and in the illustrations showing the vari ous improved breeds, to be found in then\ appro priate places in this work. It is important that every farmer, and especially every breeder, know the points of animals, especially those pertaining to prime flesh points, for, other things being equal, the animal that carries the most flesh on the prime parts, is the most valuable. On this page we give an illustration of a modern' Hereford cow, fat, figured to represent these. The inferior parts are contained before the girth place lying just behind the fore-shoulder, but again all the superior parts lie above the middle line drawn from front to rear. All the best roasting pieces lie in a, b, c, 3; and in a b, c, 9; the best steak also lies in a, b, c, 9; next in a, b, 4 10 and in 11, and the inferior in 12; but 12 is good for drying; 14, 15, 16 and 17, are used for soups and stews; 4, 5 and 13 are the plate pieces best for corning. The brisket 7, comes next; the neck 1, is also used for soups, for corn ing and also for inferior steak, a, b, 2, may be used either for roasting or for corning. So 12 may be used thus if necessary. Note 10 and 11 also for drying.. In fact, there is plenty of room for calculation in cutting up any animal for home use. ,The illustration shows the parts from a butcher's stand point. On page 183 there is a cut of a model Hereford bull of to-day, which will still further illustrate the difference in breeds as between the last and the present century.