IN-AND-IN BREEDING.
It has long been a disputed point whether the system of breeding
_in-and-in_ or the opposite one of frequent crossing has the greater
tendency to maintain or improve the character of stock. The advocates
of both systems are earnest and confident of being in the right. The
truth probably is, as in some other similar disputes, that both are
right and both wrong--to a certain extent, or within certain limits.
The term _in-and-in_ is often very loosely used and is variously
understood; some, and among these several of the best writers, confine
the phrase to the coupling of those of exactly the same blood, i.e.
brothers and sisters; while others include in it breeding from parents
and offspring, and others still employ the term to embrace those of
more distant relationship. For the latter, the term breeding in, or
close breeding, is deemed more fitting.
The prevalent opinion is decidedly against the practice of breeding
from any near relationships; it being usually found that degeneracy
follows, and often to a serious degree; but it is not proved that
this degeneracy, although very common and even usual, is yet a
necessary consequence. That ill effects follow in a majority of cases
is not to be doubted, but this is easily and sufficiently accounted
for upon other grounds. In a state of nature animals of near
affinities interbreed without injurious results, and it is found by
experience that where domesticated animals are of a pure race, or of a
distinct, well defined and pure breed, the coupling of those of near
affinities is not so often followed by injurious effects as when they
are crosses, or of mixed or mongrel origin, like the great majority of
the cattle in the country at large. In the latter case breeding
in-and-in is _usually_ found to result in decided and rapid
deterioration. We should consider also that few animals in a state of
domestication are wholly free from hereditary defects and diseases,
and that these are propagated all the more readily and surely when
possessed by both parents, and that those nearly related are more
likely than others, to possess similar qualities and tendencies.
If such is to be regarded as the true explanation, it follows that the
same method would be also efficacious in perpetuating and confirming
good qualities. Such is the fact; and it is well known that nearly all
who have achieved eminence as breeders, have availed themselves
freely of its benefits. Bakewell, the Messrs. Colling, Mr. Mason, Mr.
Bates and others, all practiced it. Mr. Bates' rule was, "breed
in-and-in from a bad stock and you cause ruin and devastation, they
must always be changing to keep even moderately in caste; but _if a
good stock_ be selected, you may breed in-and-in as much as you
please."[20] Bakewell originated his famous sheep by crossing from the
best he could gather from far or near; but when he had obtained such
as suited him, he bred exclusively from within his own. As in all
breeding from crosses, it was needful to throw out as weeds, a large
proportion of the progeny, but by rigidly doing so, and saving none to
breed from but such as became more and more firmly possessed of the
forms and qualities desired, the weeds gradually became fewer, until
at length he fully established the breed; and he continued it, and
sustained its high reputation during his life by in-breeding
_connected with proper selections for coupling_. After his death,
others, not possessing his tact and judgment in making selections,
were less fortunate, and in some hands the breed degenerated
seriously, insomuch that it was humorously remarked, "there was
nothing but a little tallow left." In others it has been maintained by
the same method. Mr. Valentine Barford of Foscote, has the pedigree
of his Leicester sheep since the day of Bakewell, in 1783, and since
1810, he has bred entirely from his own flock, sire and dam, without
an inter-change of male or female from any other flock. He observes
"that his flock being bred from the nearest affinities--commonly
called in-and-in breeding--has not experienced any of the ill effects
ascribed to the practice." W.C. Spooner, V.S., speaking of Mr.
Barford's sheep says, "His flock is remarkably healthy and his rams
successful, but his sheep are small."
Mr. Charles Colling, after he procured the famous bull Hubback,
selected cows most likely to develop his special excellencies, and
from the progeny of these he bred very closely. From that day to this,
the Short-horns as a general thing, have been very closely bred,[21]
and the practice has been carried so far, the selections not always
being the most judicious possible, as to result in many cases in
delicacy of constitution, and in some where connected with pampering,
in sterility.[22]
Col. Jaques, of the Ten Hills Farm near Boston, imported a pair of
Bremen geese in 1822. They were bred together till 1830, when the
gander was accidentally killed. Since then the goose bred with her
offspring till she was killed by an attack of dogs in 1852. Great
numbers were bred during this time, and of course there was much of
the closest breeding, yet there was no deterioration, and in fact
some of the later ones were larger and better than the first pair.
The same gentleman also obtained a pair of wild geese from Canada in
1818, which with their progeny were bred from without change until
destroyed by dogs with the above named in 1852. They continued perfect
as at first.
Among gregarious ruminating animals in a state of nature, all who
associate in a herd acknowledge a chieftain, or head, who maintains
his position by virtue of physical health, strength and general
superiority. He not only directs all their movements but is literally
the father of the herd. When a stronger than he comes, the post of
chieftain and sire is yielded, but in all probability his successor is
one of his own sons, who in turn begets offspring by his sisters. The
progeny inheriting full health, strength and development, the herd
continues in full power and vigor,[23] and does not degenerate as
often happens when man assumes to make the selections, and chooses
according to fancy or convenience. The continuance of health, strength
and perfect physical development is believed to depend on the _wisdom
of the selection, upon the presence of the desirable hereditary
qualities, and the absence of injurious ones_, and not upon
relationship whether near or remote.
It has fallen within the observation of most persons that in the human
race frequent intermarriages in the same family for successive
generations often tend to degeneracy of both mind and body; size and
vigor diminishing, and constitutional defects and diseases being
perpetuated and aggravated; but neither in this case is the result
believed to be a necessary and inevitable consequence. Else how could
it be, that Infinite Wisdom, whose operations are ever in accordance
with the laws of his own institution, in originating a "peculiar
people," chosen to be the depositories of intellectual and physical
power, wealth and influence, and who, in spite of oppression without
parallel in the world's history, have ever maintained the possession
of a goodly share of all these,--would have allowed their first
progenitor, Abraham, to marry his near kinswoman Sarah, a half sister,
niece or cousin, and Isaac their son to wed his first cousin Rebecca,
and Jacob who sprang from that union, to marry first cousins, and
their offspring for long generations to intermarry within their own
people and tribes alone? At a later period, marriages within certain
degrees of consanguinity were forbidden by Divine authority, but not
until the peculiar race was fully established, and so far multiplied,
as to allow departure from close breeding without change of
characteristics, and not improbably the prohibition was even then
based more upon moral reasons, or upon man's ignorance or recklessness
regarding selection, than upon physical law.
Such laws exist among us at present, and it is well they do, inasmuch
as for the reasons already given there is greater probability of
degeneracy by means of such connections than among those not so
related by blood. But they present an instance of the imperfection of
human laws, it being impossible for any legal enactments to prevent
wholly the evil thus sought to be avoided. It would be better far, if
such a degree of physiological knowledge existed and such caution was
exercised among the community generally, as would prevent the
contraction of any marriages, where, from the structure and endowments
of the parties, debility, deformity, insanity or idiocy must
inevitably be the portion of their offspring whether they are more
nearly related than through their common ancestor, Noah, or not.
If we adopt Mr. Walker's views, it is easy to see how parents of near
affinities may produce offspring perfect and healthy, or the reverse.
He holds, that to secure satisfactory results from any union, there
should be some inherent, constitutional, or fundamental difference;
some such difference as we often see in the human family to be the
ground of preference and attachment; as men generally prefer women of
a feminine rather than a masculine type. All desire, in a mate,
properties and qualities not possessed by themselves. Now assuming as
Mr. Walker holds, that organization is transmitted by halves, and
that, in animals of the same variety, either parent may give either
series of organs, we can see in the case of brother and sister that if
one receives the locomotive system of the father and the nutritive
system of the mother, and the other the locomotive system of the
mother and the nutritive system of the father, they are essentially
unlike, there is scarcely any similarity between them, although, as we
say, of precisely the same blood; and their progeny if coupled might
show no deterioration; whereas, if both have the same series of organs
from the same parents, they would be essentially the same, a sort of
quasi identity would exist between them, and they are utterly unfit to
be mated. There might be impotency, or barrenness, or the progeny, if
any, would be decidedly inferior to the parents; and the same applies,
more or less, to other relatives descended from a common ancestry, but
more distant than brother and sister. Mr. Walker also holds that
where the parents are not only of the same variety but of the same
family in the narrowest sense, the female always gives the locomotive
system and the father the nutritive; in which case the progeny is
necessarily inferior to the parents.
A careful consideration of the subject brings us to the following
conclusions, viz:
That in general practice, with the grades and mixed animals common in
the country, _close breeding should be scrupulously avoided_ as highly
detrimental. It is better _always_ to avoid breeding from near
affinities whenever stock-getters of the same breed and of equal merit
can be obtained which are not related. Yet, where this is not
possible, or where there is some desirable and clearly defined purpose
in view, as the fixing and perpetuating of some valuable quality in a
particular animal not common to the breed, and the breeder possesses
the knowledge and skill needful to accomplish his purpose, and the
animals are perfect in health and development, close breeding may be
practiced with advantage.
FOOTNOTES:
[20] Mr. Bates, although eminent as a breeder, was not infallible in
making his selections, and after long continued close breeding, he was
compelled to go out of his own herd to procure breeding animals.
[21] Probably few who have not critically examined the facts regarding
close breeding in the improved Short-horns are aware of the extent to
which it has been carried. On the 28th of March, 1860, at a sale of
Short-horns at Milcote, near Stratford upon Avon (England) thirty-one
descendants of a cow called "Charmer," bred of Mr. Colling's purest
blood, and praised in the advertisement as "capital milkers and very
prolific, _not having been pampered_," sold for £2,140, averaging about
$350 each, and many of them were calves. The stock was also praised as
"offering to the public as much of the pure blood of 'Favorite' as
could be found in any herd." With reference to this sale, which also
comprised other stock, the Agricultural Gazette, published a few days
previous, had some remarks from which the following is extracted:
"It is unquestionable that the ability of a cow or bull to transmit the
merit either may possess does in a great degree depend upon its having
been inherited by them through a long line of ancestry. Nothing is more
remarkable than the way in which the earlier improvers of the
Short-horn breed carried out their belief in this. They were indeed
driven by the comparative fewness of well bred animals to a repeated
use of the same sire on successive generations of his own begetting,
while breeders now-a-days have the advantage of fifty different strains
and families from which to choose the materials of their herd, but
whether it were necessity or choice it is certain that the pedigree of
no pure bred Short-horn can be traced without very soon reaching many
an illustration of the way in which 'breeding in-and-in' has influenced
its character, deepened it, made it permanent, so that it is handed
down unimpaired and even strengthened in the hands of the judicious
breeder. What an extraordinary influence has thus been exerted by a
single bull on the fortunes of the Short-horn breed! There is hardly a
single choice pure-bred Short-horn that is not descended from
'Favorite' (252) and not only descended in a single line--but descended
in fifty different lines. Take any single animal, and this bull shall
occur in a dozen of its preceding generations and repeatedly up to a
hundred times! in the animals of some of the more distant generations.
His influence is thus so paramount in the breed that one fancies he has
created it and that the present character of the whole breed is due the
'accidental' appearance of an animal of extraordinary endowments on the
stage in the beginning of the present century. And yet this is not
so;--he is himself an illustration of the breeding in-and-in
system--his sire and dam having been half brother and sister, both got
by 'Foljambe.' And this breeding in-and-in has handed down his
influence to the present time in an extraordinary degree. Take for
instance, the cow 'Charmer,' from which as will be seen elsewhere, no
fewer than thirty-one descendants are to be sold next Wednesday. She
had of course two immediate parents, four progenitors in the second
generation, eight in the third, sixteen in the fourth, the number
necessarily doubling each step farther back. Of the eight bulls named
in the fourth generation from which she was descended, one was by
'Favorite.' She is one-sixteenth 'Favorite' on that account, but the
cow to which he was then put was also descended from 'Favorite,' and so
are each of the other seven bulls and seven cows which stand on the
same level of descent with the gr. gr. g. dam of 'Charmer.' And in fact
it will be found on examination that in so far as 'Charmer's' pedigree
is known, which it is in some instances to the sixteenth generation,
she is not one-sixteenth only but nearly nine-sixteenths of pure
Favorite blood. This arises from 'Favorite' having been used repeatedly
on cows descended from himself. In the pedigree of 'Charmer' we
repeatedly meet with 'Comet'--'Comet' was by 'Favorite' and his dam
'Young Phoenix' was also by 'Favorite;' with 'George'--'George' was by
'Favorite' and his dam 'Lady Grace' was also by 'Favorite;' with
'Chilton'--'Chilton' was by 'Favorite' and his dam was also by
'Favorite;' with 'Minor'--'Minor' was by 'Favorite' and his dam also
was by 'Favorite;' with 'Peeress'--she was by 'Favorite' and her dam
also by 'Favorite;' with 'Bright Eyes'--she was by 'Favorite' and her
dam also by 'Favorite;' with 'Strawberry'--she was by 'Favorite' and
her dam by 'Favorite;' 'Dandy,' 'Moss Rose,' among the cows and 'North
Star' among the bulls are also of similar descent.
There is no difficulty therefore in understanding how this name appears
repeatedly in any given generation of the pedigree of any given animal
of the Short-horn breed."
[22] Journal Royal Agricultural Society, volume 20, page 297.
[23] It may be said with truth, that the average health and vigor of a
wild herd is much higher than it would be if the feebler portion of the
young were reared, as in a state of domestication, instead of being
destroyed by the stronger, or perishing from hardship; but if close
breeding be, of itself and necessarily, injurious, the whole herd
should gradually fail, which is not found to be the case.