CLOSE BREEDING.

BY M. MILES.

A sharp and acrimonious discussion has, for a long time, been carried on between the advocates of close breeding and those who insist upon the exclusive practice of what is called out-crossing.

The arguments that have been urged with earnestness and zeal, on both sides, have failed to settle any points in the controversy.

The positive manner in which experience is appealed to by both parties, brings to mind the old fable of the discussion in regard to the color and bearings of a shield. Here, too, each party in the debate relied upon the evidence of their own senses; but the shield had two sides, only one of which had been seen by those who were engaged in the controversy.

The more modern story of the dispute about the color of the chameleon likewise furnishes a parallel case: several persons had seen it, yet they all differed as to its color; one said it was green, another said it was brown, while others said it was of some other color. Each knew that their own eyes had not deceived them, and that the others were mistaken. The important fact was, however, overlooked by them all that the color of the animal changed with the conditions in which it was placed.

In discussing the principles of breeding, the advocates of

NOTE.-The substance of this paper was given in a lecture before the American Association of Breeders of Short-Horns, at their meeting in Cincinnati, Dec. 8, 1878. In its present form it has been extended, and some of the points discussed are more fully illustrated.

each of the extreme views referred to, make their own definitions of terms used, and they are therefore proof against any arguments of their opponents.

On each side men of straw are set up, that are easily demolished when assailed from the standpoint of those who manufacture them.

As discussions based on partial views and unfounded assumptions, are of no practical interest, we do not propose to enter the lists as the champion of the extreme views of either party. The terms in-and-in breeding, close-breeding, inter-breeding, and high-breeding are by some writers used as synonymous, while others make arbitrary distinctions in their meaning that are of no practical significance.

Some use these terms quite loosely,-applying them indifferently to any degrees of relationship, while others make use of them only to indicate the breeding together of the closest relations.

The following definitions of "in-and-in breeding" are selected from the few authors that have defined the term:

The breeding from close affinities.-Youatt.-Johnson.

Breeding between relations without reference to the degree of consanguinity.-Randall.

Breeding from animals close of kin to each other.—Copland.

It should only be applied to animals of precisely the same blood—as full brother and sister.-Bowly.

Breeding from the same family, or putting animals of the nearest relationship together-Sir John Sinclair.

The producing of a succession of animals from parents descended from the same original pair, with which the breeding series, so to speak' is commenced.-R. S. Burn.

Breeding from a near relationship, such as a first cousin, or at the most (one) in the second or third degree.-Stonehenge.

Sir John Sebright, one of our best authorities on the subject of breeding, is often quoted as an opponent of “in-and-in' breeding.

In his work on "The Art of Improving the Breeds of Domestic Animals," he says in his remarks on in-and-in breeding

"Mr. Meynel's fox-hounds are likewise quoted as an instance of the success of this practice; but, upon speaking to that gentleman upon the subject, I found that he did not attach the meaning that I do to the term in-and-in. He said that he frequently bred from the father and the daughter, and the mother and son. That is not what I consider as breeding inand-in,―for the daughter is only half of the same blood as the father, and will probably partake, in a great degree, of the properties of the mother."

Although Sir John Sinclair does not formally define the term as he understands it, it is fair to presume from this that he would limit it to closer relationships than those mentioned. It will be found, I think, that the apparently conflicting opinions of writers in regard to this subject have arisen, to a great extent, from the different meanings attached to these terms.

In this paper-without attempting to define critically the terms above mentioned, or to set a limit to the admissible relationships in breeding—it is my purpose to discuss the principles involved in breeding together animals that are closely related, as shown in the practice of those who are generally acknowledged to be the great masters of the art.

In order to prevent any misapprehension of the views here presented, it will be necessary, on the start, to call attention to some of the general principles of breeding.

The breeding of domestic animals is an art, the rules of which are founded almost exclusively upon experience and observation.

The principles underlying these rules can only be mastered by studying the practice of the most successful breeders.

The study of opinions, without reference to experience, will give rise to partial and extreme views, and these in turn will ead to errors in practice.

If we would gain a thorough knowledge of the rules of the art, and apply them successfully in practice, we must become familiar with what has been done by those who have made our improved breeds what they are.

The importance of improving the animals that man has subjected to his control, by domestication, has been urged from the earliest times, and the rule "breed from the best," has often been repeated as the only safe guide in practice. The truth of this rule was generally accepted by breeders, yet their practice showed that they failed to grasp its true meaning, and that its applications were often perverted.

Up to the time of Bakewell, the old routine practice prevailed, and but little progress was made in real improvement. Bakewell introduced a new and artistic method, that marked the beginning of a new era in the history of breeding. His method, in fact, laid the foundation for the development of breeding as one of the fine arts.

He was the first to set up a definite standard of excellence, based on a thorough knowledge of the form and internal qualities best adapted to secure the highest development of the animal for a special purpose.

He was the first to form an ideal conception of the animal he wished to produce, and of the form and qualities best adapted to his purpose.

His standard of excellence was based on a careful study of the animal and of those qualities that had a real value, and be labored with an intelligent and persistent purpose to obtain it in his animals.

Unfortunately Mr. Bakewell did not leave any written record of the principles that governed his practice, and we only have some casual remarks reported by others, together with the animals that he produced, to furnish us a knowledge of his method.

One of his maxims was, that "like begets like," and this led him to the practice of close breeding.

He often said that "all was useless that was not beef," and he aimed to secure a tendency to fatten, in connection with early maturity.

The most successful breeders have recognized the fact that

form alone is not sufficient to determine the characteristics of animals.

They observed, not only that their qualities were derived from their ancestors, but that all the characters of all the ancestors were likewise inherited.

It is true that some characters may be obscured and made latent, by the predominance of other characters; but the fact that these latent characters make their appearance under favorable circumstances shows that they have been inherited.

It is in the light of this principle that we must study pedigrees if we are to derive any practical benefit from them.

We should study pedigrees for the purpose of ascertaining the habits, characteristics, and tendencies of the ancestors of the animals we select for breeding.

In adhering strictly to the standard of excellence adopted in accordance with an ideal type, the breeders who have gained a world-wide reputation apparently found it necessary to limit their selection of breeding stock to animals descended from a common ancestry.

In other words, they selected only those animals that possessed in the highest degree the qualities they desired, and from the very circumstances of the case, on the principle already laid down, they were compelled to breed from animals that to a greater or less extent were related.

There were undoubtedly many who attempted to practice. the method of Bakewell, but few however possessed the necessary skill and persistency of purpose to gain the highest success.

The truly great masters of the art of breeding can almost be counted on one's fingers, and their success can only be attributed to the possession of a combination of qualities that would ensure eminence in any profession or pursuit.

It is an old saying that "the poet is born, not made,” and we may in the same sense truthfully say that the really great breeder is born, not made.

Let us for a moment consider some of the qualifications