The Principles of Breeding Part 1

The Principles of Breeding.

by S. L. Goodale.

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.

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 circ.u.mstances 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 quant.i.ty and quality of food, and under certain given circ.u.mstances, shall yield in the shortest time the largest quant.i.ty 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 circ.u.mstances 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 quant.i.ty 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 a.s.suredly 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 ma.s.s 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 fort.i.tude 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 embarra.s.sments; 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 acc.u.mulations 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 gra.s.s 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 const.i.tute 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.

CHAPTER II.

THE LAW OF SIMILARITY.

The first and most important of the laws to be considered in this connection is that of SIMILARITY. It is by virtue of this law that the peculiar characters, qualities and properties of the parents, whether external or internal, good or bad, healthy or diseased, are transmitted to their offspring. This is one of the plainest and most certain of the laws of nature. Children resemble their parents, and they do so because these are hereditary. The law is constant. Within certain limits progeny always and every where resemble their parents.

If this were not so, there would be no constancy of species, and a horse might beget a calf or a sow have a litter of puppies, which is never the case,--for in all time we find repeated in the offspring the structure, the instincts and all the general characteristics of the parents, and never those of another species. Such is the law of nature and hence the axiom that "like produces like." But while experience teaches the constancy of hereditary transmission, it teaches just as plainly that the constancy is not absolute and perfect, and this introduces us to another law, viz: that of variation, which will be considered by and by; our present concern is to ascertain what we can of the law of similarity.

The lesson which this law teaches might be stated in five words, to wit: _Breed only from the best_--but the teaching may be more impressive, and will more likely be heeded, if we understand the extent and scope of the law.

Facts in abundance show the hereditary tendency of physical, mental and moral qualities in men, and very few would hesitate to admit that the external form and general characteristics of parents descend to children in both the human and brute races; but not all are aware that this law reaches to such minute particulars as facts show to be the case.

We see hereditary transmission of a peculiar type upon an extensive scale, in some of the distinct races, the Jews, and the Gypsies, for example. Although exposed for centuries to the modifying influences of diverse climates, to a.s.sociation with peoples of widely differing customs and habits, they never merge their peculiarities in those of any people with whom they dwell, but continue distinct. They retain the same features, the same figures, the same manners, customs and habits.

The Jew in Poland, in Austria, in London, or in New York, is the same; and the money-changers of the Temple at Jerusalem in the time of our Lord may be seen to-day on change in any of the larger marts of trade.

How is this? Just because the Jew is a "thorough-bred." There is with him no intermarriage with the Gentile--no crossing, no mingling of his organization with that of another. When this ensues "permanence of race" will cease and give place to variations of any or of all sorts.