Produced by Jeannie Howse, Steven Giacomelli and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images produced by Core Historical
Literature in Agriculture (CHLA), Cornell University)
* * * * *
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Transcriber's Note: |
| |
| Inconsistent hyphenation and unusual spelling in the |
| original document have been preserved. |
| |
| Obvious typographical errors have been corrected. For |
| a complete list, please see the end of this document. |
| |
| Note that 'neat cattle' does not refer to cattle that |
| dress nicely, nor is it a typo. Neat cattle are |
| domesticated straight-backed animals of the bovine |
| genus. |
| |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
* * * * *
THE
PRINCIPLES OF BREEDING:
OR,
GLIMPSES AT THE PHYSIOLOGICAL LAWS
INVOLVED IN THE
REPRODUCTION AND IMPROVEMENT
OF
DOMESTIC ANIMALS.
BY
S.L. GOODALE,
SECRETARY OF THE MAINE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE.
BOSTON:
CROSBY, NICHOLS, LEE AND COMPANY,
117 WASHINGTON ST.
1861.
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1861,
BY STEPHEN L. GOODALE,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Maine.
Press of Stevens & Sayward,
Augusta, Maine.
PREFACE.
The writer has had frequent occasion to notice the want of some handy
book embodying the principles necessary to be understood in order to
secure improvement in Domestic Animals.
It has been his aim to supply this want.
In doing so he has availed himself freely of the knowledge supplied by
others, the aim being to furnish a useful, rather than an original
book.
If it serve in any measure to supply the need, and to awaken greater
interest upon a matter of vital importance to the agricultural
interests of the country, the writer's purpose will be accomplished.
CONTENTS.
PAGE.
CHAPTER I.--INTRODUCTORY, 7
II.--LAW OF SIMILARITY, 21
III.--LAW OF VARIATION, 33
IV.--ATAVISM OR ANCESTRAL INFLUENCE, 61
V.--RELATIVE INFLUENCE OF THE PARENTS, 68
VI.--LAW OF SEX, 89
VII.--IN-AND-IN BREEDING, 94
VIII.--CROSSING, 105
IX.--BREEDING IN THE LINE, 119
X.--CHARACTERISTICS OF BREEDS, 127
THE PRINCIPLES OF BREEDING.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY.
The object of the husbandman, like that of men engaged in other
avocations, is _profit_; and like other men the farmer may expect
success proportionate to the skill, care, judgment and perseverance
with which his operations are conducted.
The better policy of farmers generally, is to make stock husbandry in
some one or more of its departments a leading aim--that is to say,
while they shape their operations according to the circumstances in
which they are situated, these should steadily embrace the conversion
of a large proportion of the crops grown into animal products,--and
this because, by so doing, they may not only secure a present
livelihood, but best maintain and increase the fertility of their
lands.
The object of the stock grower is to obtain the most valuable returns
from his vegetable products. He needs, as Bakewell happily expressed
it, "the best _machine_ for converting herbage and other animal food
into money."
He will therefore do well to seek such animals as are most perfect of
their kind--such as will pay best for the expense of procuring the
machinery, for the care and attention bestowed, and for the
consumption of raw material. The returns come in various forms. They
may or may not be connected with the ultimate value of the animal. In
the beef ox and the mutton sheep, they are so connected to a large
extent; in the dairy cow and the fine wooled sheep, this is quite a
secondary consideration;--in the horse, valued as he is for beauty,
speed and draught, it is not thought of at all.
Not only is there a wide range of field for operations, from which the
stock grower may select his own path of procedure, but there is a
demand that his attention be directed _with a definite aim_, and
_towards an end clearly apprehended_. The first question to be
answered, is, what do we want? and the next, how shall we get it?
What we want, depends wholly upon our situation and surroundings, and
each must answer it for himself. In England the problem to be solved
by the breeder of neat cattle and sheep is how "to produce an animal
or a living machine which with a certain quantity and quality of food,
and under certain given circumstances, shall yield in the shortest
time the largest quantity and best quality of beef, mutton or milk,
with the largest profit to the producer and at least cost to the
consumer." But this is not precisely the problem for American farmers
to solve, because our circumstances are different. Few, if any, here
grow oxen for beef alone, but for labor and beef, so that earliest
possible maturity may be omitted and a year or more of labor
profitably intervene before conversion to beef. Many cultivators of
sheep, too, are so situated as to prefer fine wool, which is
incompatible with the largest quantity and best quality of meat.
Others differently situated in regard to a meat market would do well
to follow the English practice and aim at the most profitable
production of mutton. A great many farmers, not only of those in the
vicinity of large towns, but of those at some distance, might, beyond
doubt, cultivate dairy qualities in cows, to great advantage, and this
too, even, if necessary, at the sacrifice, to considerable extent, of
beef making qualities. As a general thing dairy qualities have been
sadly neglected in years past.
Whatever may be the object in view, it should be clearly apprehended,
and striven for with persistent and well directed efforts. To buy or
breed common animals of mixed qualities and use them for any and for
all purposes is too much like a manufacturer of cloth procuring some
carding, spinning and weaving machinery, adapted to no particular
purpose but which can somehow be used for any, and attempting to make
fabrics of cotton, of wool, and of linen with it. I do not say that
cloth would not be produced, but he would assuredly be slow in getting
rich by it.
The stock grower needs not only to have a clear and definite aim in
view, but also to understand the means by which it may best be
accomplished. Among these means a knowledge of the principles of
breeding holds a prominent place, and this is not of very easy
acquisition by the mass of farmers. The experience of any one man
would go but a little way towards acquiring it, and there has not been
much published on the subject in any form within the reach of most. I
have been able to find nothing like an extended systematic treatise on
the subject, either among our own or the foreign agricultural
literature which has come within my notice. Indeed, from the
scantiness of what appears to have been written, coupled with the fact
that much knowledge must exist somewhere, one is tempted to believe
that not all which might have done so, has yet found its way to
printers' ink. That a great deal has been acquired, we know, as we
know a tree--by its fruits. That immense achievements have been
accomplished is beyond doubt.
The improvement of the domestic animals of a country so as greatly to
enhance their individual and aggregate value, and to render the
rearing of them more profitable to all concerned, is surely one of the
achievements of advanced civilization and enlightenment, and is as
much a triumph of science and skill as the construction of a railroad,
a steamship, an electric telegraph, or any work of architecture. If
any doubt this, let them ponder the history of those breeds of animals
which have made England the stock nursery of the world, the perfection
of which enables her to export thousands of animals at prices almost
fabulously beyond their value for any purpose but to propagate their
kind; let them note the patient industry, the genius and application
which have been put forth to bring them to the condition they have
attained, and their doubts must cease.
Robert Bakewell of Dishley, was one of the first of these improvers.
Let us stop for a moment's glance at him. Born in 1725, on the farm
where his father and grandfather had been tenants, he began at the age
of thirty to carry out the plans for the improvement of domestic
animals upon which he had resolved as the result of long and patient
study and reflection. He was a man of genius, energy and perseverance.
With sagacity to conceive and fortitude to perfect his designs, he
laid his plans and struggled against many disappointments, amid the
ridicule and predictions of failure freely bestowed by his
neighbors,--often against serious pecuniary embarrassments; and at
last was crowned by a wonderful degree of success. When he commenced
letting his rams, (a system first introduced by him and adhered to
during his life, in place of selling,) they brought him 17_s._ 6_d._
each, for the season. This was ten years after he commenced his
improvements. Soon the price came to a guinea, then to two or three
guineas--rapidly increasing with the reputation of his stock, until in
1784, they brought him 100 guineas each! Five years later his lettings
for one season amounted to $30,000!
With all his skill and success he seemed afraid lest others might
profit by the knowledge he had so laboriously acquired. He put no pen
to paper and at death left not even the slightest memorandum throwing
light upon his operations, and it is chiefly through his
cotemporaries, who gathered somewhat from verbal communications, that
we know anything regarding them. From these we learn that he formed an
ideal standard in his own mind and then endeavored, first by a wide
selection and a judicious and discriminating coupling, to obtain the
type desired, and then by close breeding, connected with rigorous
weeding out, to perpetuate and fix it.
After him came a host of others, not all of whom concealed their light
beneath a bushel. By long continued and extensive observation,
resulting in the collection of numerous facts, and by the collation of
these facts of nature, by scientific research and practical
experiments, certain physiological laws have been discovered, and
principles of breeding have been deduced and established. It is true
that some of these laws are as yet hidden from us, and much regarding
them is but imperfectly understood. What we do not know is a deal more
than what we do know, but to ignore so much as has been discovered,
and is well established, and can be learned by any who care to do so,
and to go on regardless of it, would indicate a degree of wisdom in
the breeder on a par with that of a builder who should fasten together
wood and iron just as the pieces happened to come to his hand,
regardless of the laws of architecture, and expect a convenient house
or a fast sailing ship to be the result of his labors.
Is not the usual course of procedure among many farmers too nearly
parallel to the case supposed? Let the ill-favored, chance-bred,
mongrel beasts in their barn yards testify. The truth is, and it is of
no use to deny or disguise the fact, the _improvement_ of domestic
animals is one of the most important and to a large extent, one of
the most neglected branches of rural economy. The fault is not that
farmers do not keep stock enough, much oftener they keep more than
they can feed to the most profitable point, and when a short crop of
hay comes, there is serious difficulty in supporting them, or in
selling them at a paying price; but the great majority neither bestow
proper care upon the selection of animals for breeding, nor do they
appreciate the dollars and cents difference between such as are
profitable and such as are profitless. How many will hesitate or
refuse to pay a dollar for the services of a good bull when some sort
of a calf can be begotten for a "quarter?" and this too when one by
the good male would be worth a dollar more for veal and ten or twenty
dollars more when grown to a cow or an ox? How few will hesitate or
refuse to allow to a butcher the cull of his calves and lambs for a
few extra shillings, and this when the butcher's difference in
shillings would soon, were the best kept and the worst sold, grow into
as many dollars and more? How many there are who esteem size to be of
more consequence than symmetry, or adaptation to the use for which
they are kept? How many ever sit down to calculate the difference in
money value between an animal which barely pays for keeping, or
perhaps not that, and one which pays a profit?
Let us reckon a little. Suppose a man wishes to buy a cow. Two are
offered him, both four years old, and which might probably be
serviceable for ten years to come. With the same food and attendance
the first will yield for ten months in the year, an average of five
quarts per day,--and the other for the same term will yield seven
quarts and of equal quality. What is the comparative value of each?
The difference in yield is six hundred quarts per annum. For the
purpose of this calculation we will suppose it worth three cents per
quart--amounting to eighteen dollars. Is not the second cow, while she
holds out to give it, as good as the first, and three hundred dollars
at interest besides? If the first just pays for her food and
attendance, the second, yielding two-fifths more, pays _forty per
cent. profit_ annually; and yet how many farmers having two such cows
for sale would make more than ten, or twenty, or at most, thirty
dollars difference in the price? The profit from one is eighteen
dollars a year--in ten years one hundred and eighty dollars, besides
the annual accumulations of interest--the profit of the other
is--nothing. If the seller has need to keep one, would he not be wiser
to give away the first, than to part with the second for a hundred
dollars?
Suppose again, that an acre of grass or a ton of hay costs five
dollars, and that for its consumption by a given set of animals, the
farmer gets a return of five dollars worth of labor, or meat, or wool,
or milk. He is selling his crop at cost, and makes no profit. Suppose
by employing other animals, better horses, better cows, oxen and
sheep, he can get ten dollars per ton in returns. How much are the
latter worth more than the former? Have they not doubled the value of
the crops, and increased the profit of farming from nothing to a
hundred per cent? Except that the manure is not doubled, and the
animals would some day need to be replaced, could he not as well
afford to give the price of his farm for one set as to accept the
other as a gift?
Among many, who are in fact ignorant of what goes to constitute merit
in a breeding animal, there is an inclination to treat as imaginary
and unreal the higher values placed upon well-bred animals over those
of mixed origin, unless they are larger and handsomer in proportion to
the price demanded. The sums paid for qualities which are not at once
apparent to the eye are stigmatized as _fancy prices_. It is not
denied that fancy prices are sometimes, perhaps often paid, for there
are probably few who are not willing occasionally to pay dearly for
what merely pleases them, aside from any other merit commensurate to
the price.
But, on the other hand, it is fully as true that great intrinsic
value for breeding purposes may exist in an animal and yet make very
little show. Such an one may not even look so well to a casual
observer, as a grade, or cross-bred animal, which although valuable as
an individual, is not, for breeding purposes, worth a tenth part as
much.
Let us suppose two farmers to need a bull; they go to seek and two are
offered, both two years old, of similar color, form and general
appearance. One is offered for twenty dollars--for the other a hundred
is demanded. Satisfactory evidence is offered that the latter is no
better than any or all of its ancestors for many generations back on
both sides, or than its kindred--that it is of a pure and distinct
breed, that it possesses certain well known hereditary qualities, that
it is suited for a definite purpose, it may be a Short-horn, noted for
large size and early maturity, it may be a Devon, of fine color and
symmetry, active and hardy, it may be an Ayrshire, noted for dairy
qualities, or of some other definite breed, whose uses, excellencies
and deficiencies are all well known.
The other is of no breed whatever, perhaps it is called a grade or a
cross. The man who bred it had rather confused ideas, so far as he had
any, about breeding, and thought to combine all sorts of good
qualities in one animal, and so he worked in a little grade Durham,
or Hereford to get size, and a little Ayrshire for milk, and a little
Devon for color, and so on, using perhaps dams sired by a bull in the
neighborhood which had also got some "Whitten"[1] or "Peter Waldo"
calves, (though none of these showed it,) at any rate he wanted some
of the "native" element in his stock, because it was tough, and some
folks thought natives were the best after all. Among its ancestors and
kindred were some good and some not good, some large and some small,
some well favored and fat, some ill favored and lean, some profitable
and some profitless. The animal now offered is a great deal better
than the average of them. It looks for aught they can see, about as
well as the one for which five times his price is asked. Perhaps he
served forty cows last year and brought his owner as many quarters,
while the other only served five and brought an income of but five
dollars. The question arises, which is the better bargain? After
pondering the matter, one buys the low-priced and the other the
high-priced one, both being well satisfied in their own minds.
What did results show? The low-priced one served that season perhaps a
hundred cows; more than ought to have done so, came a second
time;--having been overtasked as a yearling, he lacked somewhat of
vigor. The calves came _of all sorts_, some good, some poor, a few
like the sire, more like the dams--all mongrels and showing mongrel
origin more than he did. There seemed in many of them a tendency to
combine the defects of the grades from which he sprung rather than
their good points. In some, the quietness of the Short-horn
degenerated into stupidity, and in others the activity of the Devon
into nervous viciousness. Take them together they perhaps paid for
rearing, or nearly so. After using him another year, he was killed,
having been used long enough.
The other, we will say, served that same season a reasonable number,
perhaps four to six in a week, or one every day, not more. Few came a
second time and those for no fault of his. The calves bear a striking
resemblance to the sire. Some from the better cows look even better in
some points, than himself and few much worse. There is a remarkable
uniformity among them; as they grow up they thrive better than those
by the low priced one. They prove better adapted to the use intended.
On the whole they are quite satisfactory and each pays annually in its
growth, labor or milk a profit over the cost of food and attendance of
five or ten dollars or more. If worked enough to furnish the exercise
needful to insure vigorous health, he may be as serviceable and as
manageable at eight or ten years old, as at two; meantime he has got,
perhaps, five hundred calves, which in due time become worth ten or
twenty dollars each more than those from the other. Which now seems
the wiser purchase? Was the higher estimate placed on the well bred
animal based upon fancy or upon intrinsic value?
The conviction that a better knowledge of the principles of breeding
would render our system of agriculture more profitable, and the hope
of contributing somewhat to this end, have induced the attempt to set
forth some of the physiological principles involved in the
reproduction of domestic animals, or in other words, the laws which
govern hereditary transmission.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Local names for _lyery_, or black fleshed cattle.