No farmer ever owns a fine animal without being proud of it. Yet, the
same man will have an inveterate prejudice against what are called
improved breeds. The “fancy” prices which have been extravagantly
paid, the miserable failure which some have made in attempting to
stock their farm with foreign breeds, together with a suspicion of
whatever is new, and a lack of enterprise, have deterred many farmers
from seeking a better stock than the common run. It is in this way
that speculators, besides ruining themselves, which is of no great
consequence, seriously retard the progress of enlightened husbandry.
Let us take a plain and practical view of the matter.
1. Every man who has had anything to do with cattle, horses and swine,
knows very well what a difference there is between different animals,
in respect to size, form, and aptitude to fatten. Among twenty steers
there will be a few that without any reason that the owner can see,
out-grow and out-fatten all the rest. A lot of fifty hogs gathered up
from one neighborhood, will naturally divide itself into three sorts,
those which fatten with remarkable rapidity and on little food; those
that eat voraciously without taking on fat; and those that lie between
these two extremes and are not remarkable in one way or the other.
Every man that buys a horse knows that some horses require as much
again food as others to keep them fat.
2. It is equally true that these qualities can be transmitted, by
careful breeding, from parent to offspring; until the qualities become
_fixed_ in the breed. A particular _strain of blood_, is then said to
be established. By this process, English breeders of stock, with the
greatest perseverance and with admirable skill, have established
several truly improved breeds. It is not mere beauty of form that has
been gained, although this has been eminently attained; but also all
those qualities which make an ox valuable for the _yoke_ or for the
_knife_; all that makes a cow good at the pail and afterwards for the
butcher; all that makes a hog valuable in flesh and fat. It is a
mistake to suppose that the improved breeds have been formed to please
gentlemen farmers and amateur fanciers. They have been perfected with
an eye mainly to their _profitableness_ to the farmer—the real farmer.
Nor are they the stock for large farmers and rich proprietors alone.
They are more peculiarly suited to farmers of small or moderate means
than to any other; a rich farmer can afford to keep poor stock, if
anybody can; but a small farmer is badly off indeed if the little that
he has is poor.
3. No class of farmers are more interested in having good stock of all
kinds than western farmers. Pork and beef constitute, probably,
three-fifths of their exports. It is of the last importance that they
should possess animals from which can be made the utmost profit. It is
as much more profitable for an Indiana farmer to drive the very best
cattle, as it is for a Massachusetts farmer. If improved breeds are
found on the Mohawk to be vastly more profitable than common stock,
they will be found to be just the same on the Wabash.
It does not follow, either, because we have more corn than we can
feed, or more grass and hay than can be used, that we can make up for
inferior quality by the greater quantity of cattle kept. A western
farmer may winter a hundred head of cattle without positive loss, when
a New York farmer would sink money by it. But that is not the
question. Suppose two herds, of a hundred each, of four year olds,
preparing for the shambles. They eat the same amount of grain, and hay
or grass. But when weighing-time comes, one herd averages a fourth
heavier than the other, and this is clear profit. With no more food,
and no more labor, and no longer time in fattening, they yield the
owner a fourth more profit.
Three men start a hundred hogs apiece for market.
The first lot is of the true land-shark breed, and will average, say
one hundred and twenty-five pounds; the second lot are of a better
breed, and will average two hundred pounds; the third hundred are of a
choice breed and average three hundred pounds. If the market happen to
be heavy, the first lot can hardly be sold; the second lot sells
moderately well, the third lot goes promptly and at a shade higher
price. Now what is the difference of profit? If pork is selling for
two dollars the hundred, the first hundred hogs bring two hundred and
fifty dollars. The second, four hundred dollars; and the third, six
hundred dollars. That is, a difference of breeds makes a difference in
profit, feeding and labor being the same in both cases, between the
first and last lot, of three hundred and fifty dollars. But it will be
more than this, for hogs averaging three hundred pounds will command
twenty-five cents in the hundred more than those weighing a hundred
and twenty-five pounds. The price which a farmer will get, then, for
his hundred acres of corn, depends upon what his hogs can do for him.
One sort of hogs can make up a fourth more fat than others, and
another can make up still a fourth more than these. If you owned a
mill, which of two millers would you choose—the one who could make
forty pounds of flour to the bushel, or the one who could make
forty-five—the quality being equally good? Of two acres of land, which
would you choose—the one which would yield fifteen bushels of wheat,
or the one which, with the same cultivation, would yield thirty? Our
farmers are willing enough to hunt for good lands; but why, on the
same reasons, should they not hunt for the best breeds of cows, cattle
hogs, and horses?
4. As to the different varieties which are cried up, we have no
interest in urging one more than another upon the public. It is all
one to us whether Hereford, Devon, or Durham, prevail; Woburn, Byfield
or Berkshire. All that we ask is that farmers should aim to procure
_the best_. Their own experience must determine which that is. One
kind will suit one range of land better than another. Beginning with
moderation, a shrewd farmer will soon be able to tell whether any
particular breed will suit his farm.
We presume that all farmers work for the sake of profit: we urge an
improvement of stock simply on the ground of its _profitableness_.