fell short of two pounds. The remainder of her milk was for family use, and, when set for cream, produced the usual quantity. These experiments were made on grass feed only. She did not give a large mess; only about twelve quarts per day. I have forty cows and heifers, ten bulls and bull calves, of different grades, of this Cream Pot breed, all bred and raised by myself. I keep my bulls, selected as breeders, until I have proof of the quality of their offspring. My old Cream Pot bull is ten years old. My Don Cream Pot, from which I am now breeding with some of my cows and heifers, is three years old.” Mr. Jones has the last two heifers and the last two bulls bred by the late Colonel Jaques, and professes to hold this Cream Pot blood as pure as it came from its originator. He thus describes the stock: "They are of medium size, with straight backs, long bodies, deep briskets, broad hips, short legs-as Colonel Jaques used to say, one-story cattle. They have small tails, broad heads, long from eyes to end of the nose; eyes large and well opened; bags well set forward, and, when milked, nothing but a thin velvet skin, and invariably the forward teats the longest and largest. They are not a close-ribbed-up cattle, like many other breeds, but have flat ribs, very open, like the joints of their backs; color light red generally, with a circle round the eyes, and muzzle a shade or two lighter than the body; disposition mild and gentle. I have never known a kicker or an unruly one of the breed." In a volume of the "Agriculture of Massachusetts," mention is made of a Cream Pot and Durham cow, owned by Harvey Dodge, of Sutton, Massachusetts, which gave thirty-seven pounds of milk per day, from June to October, on grass alone. The establishment of an American breed, commencing by judicious selections of the heaviest native milkers, and careful breeding with short-horn bulls of families of established reputation as dairy stock, should suffice to satisfy the ambition of any enlightened breeder in the country. It would be the work of a lifetime, however, and few have either the skill or the patience for such a work. IMPROVEMENT OF NATIVE CATTLE. BY LEWIS F. ALLEN, BLACK ROCK, NEW YORK. To properly understand the subject in its several bearings, it is necessary that the past history and present status of our American cattle should be explained to some extent. The first cattle introduced into North America were brought to the coast of what is now Mexico by the Spaniards. They came from Spain and the Spanish West Indies, and were landed probably at Vera Cruz, as early as the year 1525. In the mild climate and on the abundant pasturage of that country they thrived and spread with the increase of the population, and in the course of years ranged over the country, in both domestic and semi-wild condition. They have so lived and increased to the present time. Of what particular kind or breed the cattle were it is now impossible to say, but they were no doubt of the same race as those long bred and kept by the Moors in Andalusia and the south of Spain, and, after the expulsion of the Moors from the country, retained by the Castilians, and continued by them till after the discovery of America, and probably to the present day. The same race of cattle still exists in Mexico and its several provinces, and is now the chief stock of New Mexico, Texas, and California. Their qualities will be noticed hereafter. In the year 1608 Quebec, in Lower Canada, was first settled, and the surrounding country was peopled by emigrants from western France, who brought over with them cattle from Normandy, a small race, and noted for their kind domestic qualities. In that cold climate they received care and protection, and proved a highly useful breed. In the year 1607 Virginia was first settled, on the James river, by a colony from England. Again, in 1609, another colony came over, and in 1610 and 1611 cattle were brought there from the West Indies. The colony was nearly destroyed by the Indians in 1622, but whether their cattle shared the fate of the colony is not accurately known. The survivors, however, received accessions from England soon afterwards, with cattle of the same stocks, probably, as those subsequently brought into the New England colonies. Of what care they received, or how rapidly they multiplied, we have no account; but, in all probability, by natural increase and frequent importations, the wants of the settlers were tolerably supplied. The climate was mild, wild forage abundant, and we may presume they thrived apace and spread with the necessities of the popula tion. The Dutch emigrants first settled New York in the year 1614, and brought with them cattle from Holland, of a different race from either of the others above mentioned. They were noted as good milkers, and black and white, and red and white, in colors. They also multiplied by natural increase and continued importations until the further supply from Holland was unnecessary. In the year 1624 the English colonies, then settled at Plymouth and Boston, in Massachusetts, made their first importations of cattle from England. The mother country, at that day as now, possessed several different breeds. Of what breeds these early importations were we have no distinct knowledge. It may be supposed that they were gathered from near the localities whence they were shipped, and of the breeds then prevailing in the countries from which the emigrants proceeded to this country. New Jersey was settled in 1624 by the Dutch, and Delaware about the same time by the Swedes, the settlers bringing cattle with them. The early records of New Hampshire show that cattle were imported into that colony in the years 1631, 1632, and 1633, from Denmark, with many Danish emigrants, who settled on the Piscataqua_river. These Danish cattle were large, coarse in shape, and of a yellowish or dun color. In 1633 Maryland was settled by English, and with Catholics under Lord Baltimore, who brought cattle from England and Ireland. North Carolina and South Carolina were settled in 1660 and 1670 by the English, and Pennsylvania in 1680, the settlers bringing their cattle from England. It thus appears that the original stocks of cattle brought into the colonies were mainly English, with the few exceptions made by the Dutch, Danish, and Swedish importations, and perhaps a few French cattle introduced by the Huguenots into South Carolina, and possibly by some of the Huguenots who early came into New York. These cattle spread along the coast and into the interior, with the colonists, and as the latter intermixed their settlements, their herds became intermixed also, and in time made up that conglomerate race which has since spread throughout the United States, and is now known as "native cattle." Ingenious efforts have been made by occasional American writers on cattle to identify some of the present native stocks with the original breeds of England, by their resemblance, more or less, to them, and thus claim them as direct descendants of such breeds; but that descent has been too remote, and the originals too uncertain in legitimate breed, to prove any certainty in the matter. We may well suppose, however, that Devons, the Herefords, the Long-horns, the Short-horns, the Alderneys, and the polled or hornless cattle of Sussex and Norfolk, all of England, as well as the black and white belted cattle of Holland, and others less distinct in breed, came over; and as these emigrating cattle were confined to the localities near which they were first landed, they doubtless perpetuated their qualities and appearance among their descendants more strongly than in other districts where they were miscellaneously bred, and without regard to distinction. in appearance or race. Some of the colonists were more painstaking than others, having a fancy for shape, color, size, and dairy qualities, and hence bred in their stock with care, to perpetuate their desirable qualities through their descendants. The New England people were rather famous for this. They worked oxen largely on their rough and strong land, and those colonies and States for nearly two centuries were the chief cheese-producing localities of the country. The "red cattle" of New England were sometimes claimed by their advocates as of a distinct breed, but without sufficient evidence that they were entitled to such merit; their superior qualities only showing that good husbandry had developed them to a higher degree than that attained by others of the same original stock, which had been neglected, or in the breeding and rearing of which less discriminating care had been used. Bred through every possible degree of intermixture from Maine to Georgia, and far into the interior, so far as the extending settlements progressed, our native cattle have ranged, better in some States and worse in others, according to the care and keeping received, and they are now found an indefinitely mixed race, without blood or pedigree other than that which may be traced to a source common with all. As the colonists increased in prosperity, history gives us some vague information, and local tradition supplies other accounts, of individual importations in the last century of cattle of some particular breeds for the purpose of improving our domestic stock. But these breeds were not preserved in their purity, and after some years of trial they were lost in the grade blood of their descendants, and only recognized as an occasional resemblance to the original blood would “ crop out" in a subsequent generation. Our cattle history, thus vague and indefinite, brings us down through the last two centuries to the year 1793, at which time it was not known that a single herd of any distinct, improved foreign breed existed in the United States. THE INTRODUCTION OF PURE FOREIGN BREEDS OF CATTLE. In the year 1793, as near as can be ascertained, a Mr. Miller, of Virginia, and a Mr. Gough, of Baltimore, imported some cattle from England, which, from all the accounts we have had of them, were pure short-horns. Into what particular part of the country they went we are not advised, but our inference is that some of the blood was soon taken to the south branch of the Potomac river, in Virginia, a fine grazing region, which for many of the early years of the present century was noted for its superior cattle. As early as 1797 a Mr. Patton, from Virginia, took some of these short-horns into the blue-grass region of Kentucky, where they were afterwards known as the "Patton stock." They were there bred, and became decided favorites with the breeders and graziers of that young State. In 1815 or 1816 a few short-horns were imported into County, New York. In 1818, and down to 1824, several importations of short-horns were made into Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, and it was then that these various importations began to be separately and distinctly bred. For more than a century they had maintained a distinguished character of superiority over some of the old breeds in England, and were owned and bred by men of enterprise, who had bestowed great care in their selection, with a view to developing the valuable properties, both in flesh and for the dairy, which they possessed in an eminent degree. They had been cultivated for several centuries in three of the northeastern counties of England-Northumberland, Durham, and Yorkand the most sedulous care taken to transmit their blood in its greatest purity. These facts being known to the American importers, impressed them with a necessity, hitherto unappreciated here, of preserving the purity of blood, and, as evidence of it, the pedigree of their herds. In the year 1817, an importation of three bulls and three heifers of the short horn breed was made by Col. Lewis Sanders, of Lexington, Kentucky, followed soon after by a bull and heifer, imported by a Captain Smith, of the same place. These were interbred among themselves, also into the Patton stock, and so laid the foundation of many valuable Kentucky breeds. After the year 1824 but few importations of short-horns were made, although those which had been previously brought out were carefully bred, and made their way successfully into various parts of the country. The States west of the Alleghanies, particularly Kentucky and Ohio, had then become largely engaged in cattle-breeding, and their fat cattle had been driven over the mountains in great numbers to the eastern markets; the attention of the breeders and graziers had become aroused to the importance of cultivating a better stock than they had previously possessed, but they could find no immediate means at home to meet the necessity. Hence, in 1834, the first combined and vigorous effort was made (in the Scioto valley of Ohio) to secure an importation that would supply the long-sought material for the improvement of the blood of their native breeds. In that year an agent was sent out by an organized association, and nineteen head of the best shorthorns that could be obtained in England were brought over. In the immediately succeeding years, two other importations were made by the same company. These were followed by other importations, by individuals and associations in Kentucky, Pennsylvania, New York, and other States, down to the year 1860; so that, in these forty odd years, several hundreds of the best short-horns to be found in England have been brought into the United States-all of approved blood, and with distinct pedigrees, showing their lineage for generations, even centuries back. It may appear invidious to thus distinguish the short-horns as the only approved foreign race of cattle to which the attention of our enterprising cattle-breeders had been aroused. But the object of this paper precludes any extended or particular notice of other breeds. In common justice, however, to the great cattle interests of the country, I must briefly allude to them. About the year 1816 two pairs of Hereford cattle were imported by the distinguished Kentucky statesman, Henry Clay, and taken to his farm at Lexington. A year or two afterwards, a pair of long-horn cattle were imported into the same State. But no particular results followed this introduction, and they were soon afterwards lost in the more absorbing blood of the short-horns. Many Devons were soon after imported into Maryland, New York, and New England, some Herefords into Massachusetts, and two considerable herds of the latter into New York and some into Canada; scattering along in time, also, Ayrshires for dairy purposes, together with the Dutch or Holsteins, Alderneys for their rich, yellow milk, cream, and butter; and last of all, the black Galloways from Scotland (famous for their excellent beef) into Canada. These are all good breeds, celebrated for their various qualities for both flesh and dairy use, and by their crosses on our native cattle the quality and value of the latter have been greatly improved. The short-horns, however, in their superior size, compactness of frame, symmetry of form, rapid growth, early maturity, and imposing appearance, have acquired a wider popularity for their great beef-producing qualities than all the others put together, although the possessors of some of the other breeds challenge a rivalry of their own favorites as beef-producing animals, on equal economical grounds, and proportionate expenditure of food. The question of their compara tive merits, however, forms no part of the present discussion. It is simply the value of the short-horns in benefiting, by their crosses, the native cattle of our country, particularly in the great stock-producing States and Territories of the west. THE VALUE AND IMPORTANCE OF OUR NEAT CATTLE. This subject is most important in view of the vast interest connected with it, and its extent will now be considered. According to the census of the year 1860, the neat cattle of the United States and their Territories were: cows, 8,728,862; of working oxen, 2,240,675; of other cattle, 14,671,400; in all, 25,640,937. The value of these cattle may be estimated, at present prices, as follows: Cows, at $40 each.. Total. $349, 154, 480 112,033, 750 366, 785,000 $S27, 973, 230 "Other cattle" includes all under three or four years old, and as many of them are steers, intended for beef, the average price is not too high. As I am not now estimating any quality in these cattle, except for the production of beef, and as the beef-producing States and Territories lie at the west, where it can be more cheaply and readily grown than in the middle and castern States, I give a table of those States and Territories, with the cattle of the census of 1850 and 1860, to show the relative increase in their neat stock in ten years: I have not taken the middle, eastern, or planting States into account, as they show little increase of cattle, and as there is much more consumption than increase in them, beef-making is only incidental, in fattening such as are no longer fit for the dairy, or for work. Arkansas, Tennessee, and Texas have been placed in the list of cattle-growing States, although they are, to some extent, |