The chapter on genetics and breeding policy has already provided the best basis for the prospective judge of cattle. The points which I have shown to be worth breeding for in a dairy cow are obviously the points which a judge should look for in the ring. Some of the points worth breeding for are not, however, capable of assessment in the ring. Lifetime yield is one; efficiency of food conversion and freedom from disease are others. But a careful inspection of the female in the ring gives as good a guide to her potentialities as is possible. I disagree emphatically with the people who contend that shows are a waste of time and useless as a means of measuring the ability of one animal against another. British supremacy in the pedigree cattle world has been built on the improvements which the show ring has made possible. One may equally say the same of present-day official milk recording, for all that it tells us is how much milk a cow has given. It says nothing about how much it cost to produce that milk and consequently gives no guide as to the profitability of the cow which is the main thing we want to know about a cow when we are comparing her with others. This means, then, that milk recording is an even more obscure guide than the show ring if we are to take either system separately as a means of judging a cow. A combination of milk records and inspection with added information regarding the food consumed and the cow's body weight, would provide the ideal means of judging animals. But food consumption is extremely difficult to record officially so to-day we must rely on the other three factors.

   Even then it is possible, with the knowledge of milk and butterfat yield, to study the cow's appearance and estimate whether or not her conformation is the kind which gives milk efficiently. I am quite sure it is possible to look at a cow and say within not unreasonable limits that she is shaped, her udder is attached and the whole is supported on legs in such a way as to indicate that the milk she gives is given efficiently. The ribs alone will give a good guide on this point for no dairy cow with flesh on her ribs during a lactation can be considered an efficient milk producer. She wouldn't convert enough of her food into flesh to cover her ribs if she were.

   But more often than not one is called upon to judge the animals solely on their appearance on the day of the show. So it is on appearance alone that we must discuss the way to judge a cow.

   Nearly all my experience as a judge of show cattle—and certainly most of my experience in recent years—has been with Jerseys. So I can best demonstrate the judging of a dairy cow on the Jersey. I feel sure no member of any other dairy breed society will deny that whatever other failings the Jersey cow may have, she stands supreme as the perfect model of a dairy cow. Year after year the Jersey cow stands at the top of the line on inspection points at the Dairy Show in the judging for the Supreme Individual Championship (though she is generally beaten to first place in the final placing, because a cow of another breed twice as heavy has given about one-third to half as much again more milk, probably at two or three times the cost). The leading judges with any claim to impartiality are agreed on the Jersey model of symmetry, beauty and temperament upon which they would model the conformation of other breeds. On the more controversial function of milk and butterfat yields general opinion is very divided and the enthusiast of each breed has his reasons for choosing his own particular breed. I have reproduced a selection of these reasons for each dairy breed in a later part of this book.

   The first thing to equip oneself with for the task of judging is a good knowledge of the official score card of the breed. I am not suggesting that in the ring it is possible or even desirable to score each animal, total up the points awarded and thus place the paraded cattle in order of merit. This may be done by a few judges—but I have never met them. I do often feel though that many official judges could do with at least a nodding acquaintance with the score card! We might then get more consistent placing of cattle and we should not suffer so often the annoyance of seeing, for example, the Royal Show Champion placed third or fourth under a different judge against the same competition at a small county show. It is, of course, quite common for a cow to be off colour one day and on top of her form the next day, for her form at the moment she is under the judge's eye to affect the final placing and to vary according to her form. But I am sure a good judge should be able to judge through form, and to close his eyes to the superficial sheen of the day and place the cow as a cow and not as a pretty picture. As an example of what I mean I'll illustrate with an experience we had at shows in 1950. At one show on a Monday, Dolly Daydream was awarded first prize and Treasure was given fifth place in the same class. On the Thursday of the same week and under the same judge at a different show Dolly Daydream was placed fifth and Treasure was third. When asked why—the judge said: "You spent a little more time on preparing Treasure this time." The superficial appearance of the cow had affected the placing. I do feel that the Judge's eye should have penetrated beneath the veneer of show preparations and judged the honest cow as a cow and not the skill of her owner in presenting her. He should not in my opinion have put one up and one down on the second day simply because we had applied more spit and polish, tail trimming and rugging to one than the other. A good judge should be able to place animals in their working clothes at any stage of their lactations. It is reasonable to expect a cow to be clean and fit to handle in the show ring but it should not be necessary to spend weeks of preparation and, with some breeds, keeping the animals covered with rugs. If I had my way, prizes would be withheld from any animal which is seen to wear a rug, except by permission of stewards after examination by a vet, at any time during the show. This would at any rate stop the rugging before the show, for no owner would expose a home-rugged cow in this way if at the show, he had to risk the whole day without a rug.

   But here I speak only as a judge. As an exhibitor of cattle I am still compelled, in order to enable my cattle to compete fairly with other rugged cattle, to do a limited amount of rugging especially for the earlier shows in May and June. In the section of this book on preparing for show, rugging is allowed for.

   But as a judge I must say I am prejudiced against animals which by their exceptional sleekness have obviously lived in rugs and also indoors for months before a show. I try to judge the animal for what it is and not for what its owner or herdsman has tried to make it appear to be. And I hope, if another judge here and there will do the same, the commercial breeder, who has neither the time, staff, money, nor inclination to coddle his cows, will at last be able to compete on equal terms with the cow-coddling pot hunter. Breed societies are always afraid of offending their successful members, who are probably responsible for making the rules anyway, by introducing such a simple, yet revolutionary rule as forbidding rugging at shows. But judges who have the courage to discourage the 'hot-house flower' by allowing it to wilt at the bottom of the line from time to time, will do more good for agricultural shows, and their fellow breeders who have to make cows pay their way—than all the half-hearted pleas of Breed Society Councils.

   My own breed, the Jersey, is the very worst offender at the larger county shows, with the use of the rug and, what is more, the back sheet or sheets. Heaven only knows how many prospective newcomers to the breed have ploughed up and down the Jersey lines weaving their way between layers of thick and almost hermetically sealed canvas curtains, vainly hoping to get a glimpse of one or two of the Jersey cows which inside these secret caverns are further shrouded with heavy woollen blankets so firmly fixed that one hardly dare lift a corner to peep at the sweltering creature panting for breath underneath, only to give it up and go to one of the breeds which are openly displayed for anyone to see without a thing to hide.

   With a reasonable knowledge of the breed score card, but above all that indelible picture of the perfect cow of your dreams in your mind, one can go into the ring well equipped to place the animals in order of merit. But in support of this essential knowledge, an instinct about a correct animal, gives confidence which defies all the ringside judges and the feeling that one is judging for one's own satisfaction, selecting the animals in the order that one would admit them to one's own herd, not anyone else's. It is absolutely essential to close one's eyes to the very existence of anyone else outside the ring. Each will have his or her own idea of the best and worst animals in the ring, from where he or she is looking, and no doubt a few odd ideas about the man in the centre of the ring as well. But you are the only man who is looking at the animals from the inside of the ring and you are the only person qualified at that moment to place the animals correctly. You are therefore the only man whose opinion need be taken into account. Above all don't judge the man leading the cow, for if you do you may, like me, be tempted to place the cow in the hands of that ridiculously ostentatious showman lower than she deserves. Nothing irritates me more, or is more likely to make me want to go against my own better judgment of the animal, than the man who indicates with every gesture of his hands, head and backside, that he has already decided the order in which you should place them. Unfortunately some judges are influenced by the obvious showman. My own reaction is to suspect that he has something to conceal in his animal.

   Standing first of all in the centre of the ring, the process of judging I prefer to follow is this. The animals come in and move clockwise around the perimeter of the ring, arranged in numerical order. I start to judge in my own mind as soon as the first animal enters the ring, unless there are other detractions such as conversation with the stewards. So the first animal in the ring gets the first, and probably the longest viewing. If the animal has any bad faults it is too bad for the exhibitor that he came in first. If the animal is really good it allows the fact to be well impressed on my mind. As the animals parade round and round, first general impressions are formed. One or two animals stand out at once as superior in general appearance and conformation. Then the animals are paraded in the opposite direction in case one side of the animal, as often is the case, is better than the other. Obvious faults such as sloping rumps, weak loins, badly shaped or sagging udders, sickle and 'cow' hocks and lameness are spotted on this first general view—and if the class is so big that some weeding out has to be done before judging proper can begin then I turn out any that have no prospect of being placed. With a big class, judging is very much simplified by starting at the bottom and eliminating the worst, before starting at the top and picking out the best.

   The animals are then stopped and examined closely and individually where they stand. The aim of this first individual inspection is not so much to make comparisons as to find the less obvious faults and to make a note, mental or literal, if one or more of the animals is near faultless or obviously superior to the rest of the entries. This close inspection will eliminate one or two more hopeless cases which may be sent out of the ring at once. It is usual to ask the steward to give the instructions for animals to leave the ring and in order to 'soften' the disappointment to the adoring owner or herdsman of the rejected animal, the moment for doing this is delayed until the animals are moving round again, unless the ring is still uncomfortably overcrowded and immediate despatch of the more obvious duds is necessary to relieve pressure in the ring.

   This individual examination takes note of udder shape, quality and attachment, teat placings, spring of rib, shoulder fineness, hip width, tail setting, and quality of bone generally, pliability and silkiness of skin, legs and head, and general appearance at close range. It helps to confirm or deny first impressions and detect any obvious defects which may disqualify the animal, such as overshot or undershot jaws. One may also take account of such indications of milking ability as the amount of surplus flesh, ease of milking, brightness of eye and body size in relation to udder capacity, bearing in mind that a small cow may have a proportionately greater udder capacity and in consequence is likely to produce as great a yield of milk as the next one, at a proportionately lower cost. Points cannot be awarded for such rough estimates but other things being equal, they must be taken into one's assessment.

   Apart from one's own personal taste and the model of perfection in one's mind's eye, which are certain to influence the final placing, I may here go through the major important factors in the judging of a cow. Though we must accept the breed score card as the final authority if we are to achieve anything approaching a uniform breed standard, I am inclined, as I suppose are most judges, to place the emphasis regarding order of importance of the various points, rather differently. For instance, an alert movement and purposeful gait with four strong straight legs squarely placed, is the first requirement of a first prize winner. That type of animal is the one I plump for in the original general inspection and she starts with an advantage over all others. She has the frame which is necessary to support a large heavy udder and a capacious body full of food. Cow hocked or sickle hocked hind legs, or narrowly placed and knock-kneed forelegs are rejected at once in my judgment; for, good as her udder may be and correct as she may be in other respects, a cow with weak legs cannot possibly last long as a working cow, though she may survive as a hot-house show specimen, dried off early in the lactation (as soon as the show season is over) to save the shape of her udder and the strain on her legs. So, good legs must come first in my judgment.

   Second in importance is the body and belly to provide the food to fill the udder. The barrel must be deep and wide across the underside. The wider the body is at the extremities of the ribs the better, indicating large stomach capacity. The whole framework of the cow must be angular and fit roughly into three triangles.

   The first triangle is from front to back, i.e. from the neck as the apex and the hips as the base; the second from the top of the shoulders or chine as the apex, and the chest and forelegs as the base, and the third with the backbone as the apex and the belly as the base. The wider the base of these triangles the better in each case, indicating ample uterus capacity and spacious pelvic girdle in the first, great heart and lung capacity in the second, and large stomach capacity in the third. Similarly the finer the apex in each case the less surplus flesh the animal carries, and consequently the more efficient she is likely to be as a converter of foodstuffs into milk.   

5. Milking out in the ring during judging at the Royal Dublin Show, 1947

6. General view of the judging at an English Jersey Cattle Society's Autumn Show and Sale. Note how the good herdsman 'shows' his animal continuously but without 'showing' himself too much

   Having picked out the animals with frames that are capable of carrying them, I judge the udders.

   Just as a perfect udder is useless without the strength and straight-ness of legs to support it, and stomach capacity to fill it, so the good body, though it does in many cases generally make the best of a bad udder, cannot be fully used without a capacious and well-shaped udder. The nearest thing we know to perfection is the udder of a good Ayrshire cow. Apart from a tendency to rather small teats, which is now being bred out of the best herds, Ayrshires have the ideal udder. The Jersey comes a very close second and some of the best Jerseys may now be emulating the Ayrshire. For nothing equals the Jersey for fineness of skin texture and the ability of the udder to milk out clean and empty.

   The essentials of a good udder are that its shape should be as near to square as possible with the addition in front of an extension which runs forward under the body flush with the floor of the rest of the udder and the belly. Teats should be an even size capable of being held comfortably in one hand, placed evenly near the outer 'corners' of the udder and placed a good distance apart, ideally 6 to 9 inches according to the size of the udder. The teats should draw, i.e. be capable of being milked, easily but should not drip milk in the ring. Milk leaking from the udder indicates overstocking of the udder, or a weakness in the teats. An obviously stocked cow would be rejected by me at once. A cow with leaking teats, though she may not be disqualified, could not be placed very high.

   The rear of the udder should continue vertically to the escutcheon with little or no division evident between the two rear quarters. The wider the udder is between the legs and the longer it is from back to under belly attachment the greater the capacity.

   The whole impression of the udder should be as an integral part of the cow's body, rather than as an accessory to the cow which was attached separately when it became necessary for the cow to give milk. The 'built in' udder which is joined flush with the escutcheon at the back, the flanks at the sides and the belly in front is the model of perfection.

7. A good spring of rib

 8. Ribs widely 'sprung' and wide apart. Photo shows two bent knuckles between last two ribs. Open ribs and wide space between hip and last rib indicates large stomach capacity

   The worst faults are uneven and awkwardly placed teats; an udder which cuts up to the belly at the front or slopes forward from the escutcheon at the back; a sloppy pendulous udder or one with a bottle neck, i.e. one which is narrow at the attachment, bagging out towards the middle and the base. Such udders quickly collapse under heavy work, the muscles being unable to stand the strain of carrying large quantities of milk.

   There are not many udders which show no demarcation or appearance of division between the two hind quarters. Though the udder entirely without division is superficially better looking and more acceptable to most judges, I am not sure that it is the best kind of udder. The muscle strength of the undivided udder is in my experience not as great as that of the udder with the shallow dent or division down the back of the udder, nor is the yield of milk as much. This may, of course, be an unjust generalization, but on the whole I favour a slight division.

   A very marked cutting up between the quarters from the teats upwards is, however, not a good thing. The floor of the udder between the top of each teat should be straight and level.

   The photographs will illustrate better than my words, what I mean by a good udder.

   Fleshy udders are condemned quite rightly by all judges of dairy cows. But we must distinguish between the fleshy and the muscular udder. An udder which milks out to leave a thin silky deeply folding udder hanging like an empty string or canvas shopping bag is not necessarily the best-wearing udder. I have known some exceptionally high yielding cows whose udders still looked half full after they had been milked out. This type of udder, though it does not fit the accepted measure of a perfect udder, will in my opinion, because of its muscular nature (surplus flesh or fat is another, and undesirable, matter) stand up to many lactations of hard wear without sagging or breaking down. I would not put too great a penalty on the udder which doesn't collapse completely after milking.

   The next step in judging, after individual examinations, noting faults and perfections in the judging book together with any other comments likely to be useful in the final comparison, is to parade the animals around the ring once more. This further parade gives once more the general picture of each animal against the detailed close-up examination which has just been made. This 'standing back' view will help to confirm or deny first and second impressions and from this parade animals are drawn into the centre in the order in which they are, up to this stage in the judging, favoured. Two or three more animals than the number of prizes to be awarded are lined up across the middle of the ring, the animals not drawn in are asked to leave the ring. Comparative examinations are then made. The animals are handled and carefully compared on all points, and placed in strict order while their udders are still full; milking out follows and the final placing is done after a further examination of the udders when they are empty. Some breed societies still allow judging without milking out, but no man can place animals of any breed fairly without seeing their udders empty.

   In the judging of maiden heifers the udder cannot play a very important part. Even more importance is placed then on bodies, legs, and general dairy character and appearance. Udders should nevertheless show signs of satisfactory development with the teats squarely and widely placed and with ample lose skin without surplus fat or flesh.

   Bulls offer a problem in guesswork which most judges enjoy, though few regard as of any great importance in the evaluation of a bull. The only real means of assessment of a bull is his daughters and for this reason the classes for progeny groups, i.e. classes for three daughters of one bull, are the most valuable of all show classes anywhere. There is more satisfaction and more credit due, in the winning of a Progeny Group class than all the individual prizes in the show, and it is time show committees recognized this in their allocation of prize money. Exhibitors will not bring out their best groups in full force until more prize money is offered. It is an expensive business bringing out three animals, in addition (as sometimes is necessary) to the individual entries. So I feel that prize money in the progeny class should be at least three times the value of an individual prize. Then we may see some really good classes of progeny teams which will do more to improve our herds than all the classes for individual animals can ever do. 


NEXT