Page images
PDF
EPUB

value of such improvement, which would give an aggregate annual value to the wealth of the State of THREE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

And yet notwithstanding the fact that cattle breeders could so easily add this immense amount to their annual profits, it is probable that efforts to accomplish this improvement are not as efficient now as they were few years ago. We have fewer thoroughbred cattle now than we had in 1860. A few spirited breeders in the Scioto and Miami valleys have, at different periods made large importations of the best cattle that could be procured. The liberality of these gentlemen furnished us ample means for the improvement of our stock throughout the State.

But for want of sufficient encouragement to make the breeding of these magnificent animals profitable, it has been to a great extent abandoned, so that the number of large herds of thorough bred cattle are very limited. It was not to be expected, nor did these importers anticipate, that all the farmers of the State would become breeders of thorough bred stock; but looking to the fact that short horn bulls could be profitably bred at about one hundred dollars each, and that if bred to 50 common cows at the price of only $3 00 each, the price and expense of keeping would be made in two years, that all thrifty men who kept bulls at all would as a matter of self interest, procure thorough bred animals. As has been already shown, this price for the service of a bull would be returned three fold in the increased value of the progeny, even for breeding steers for beef.

The influence of these importations in improving our stock has been very great, and if cattle breeders generally were to avail themselves, of the opportunity now within the reach of all, of using thoroughbred bulls, the improvement would soon become universal, and the breeders of this stock would be encouraged to maintain the excellence of their herds.

But without such encouragement there is reason to fear that in the course of a few years our thoroughbred herds will be all broken up. Should this take place it will not be long before all the benefits derived by the infusion of this blood into our common stock will entirely disappear. "Blood will tell," it is true, but only so long as we have pure bred animals to resort to; the blood in the grades will soon "run out," if they are bred together and to common stock. It is much cheaper for a person engaged in the ordinary business of farming to purchase, a bull, say at $100, than to breed him. To breed this stock and maintain its excellence, requires a peculiar taste and skill, very close attention and considerable capital. It should be a business by itself; and to succeed well at it, a man must, to a great extent, make it a speciality. The superiority of Eustusv h si ea coat.oned, and is now matita ned by this practice

We find breeders there who have been all their lives devoted to this business; and from these the farmers have purchased and hired breeding bulls, until a large majority of the good cattle of the kingdom have a strong infusion of short horn blood.

What are the small number who still continue the business of breeding thoroughbred stock in Ohio to do? I know they have been seriously considering the propriety of abandoning it entirely. In proportion to the amount of capital invested their profits have been much less than has been realized by those who have purchased pure bred bulls and bred them to good common and grade cows. Still I think a man who has thoroughbred stock, who breeds only for the common purposes of producing beef and milk, can make it pay to keep them. I do not say that the breed can be kept up to its maximum excellence without a larger expenditure than would be justified if sales were only made for these common purposes. For in order to keep up such a herd it will be necessary frequently to purchase the best bulls that can be had, and these, though there is very little general demand, are not obtainable at less than from $500 to $1,000. In a herd of this sort no cow should be retained that is not good in all useful points; and as the superiority of the short horns over all other breeds, consists in the combination of the two great requisites of excellence for beef and milk, no cow should be used that is an inferior milker.

Many of the calves, therefore, must be consigned to the butcher, and the best only retained as breeders. These until they arrive at maturity must be so liberally fed as to continue all the time in rapid growth, for this thrifty habit will, as we have seen, be inherited by the progeny. They should not be kept too fat, and especially should breeders be careful to guard against this in adult bulls. This condition is injurious to their health and vigor, and will be likely injuriously to affect their offspring.

Breeding ought not to be commenced until the animals, male and female, are nearly full grown, and should not be continued after age has began to effect their condition and to reduce their flesh. In-and-in breeding should be avoided.

It is better to breed to a good animal that is closely related than to breed to an inferior one that is not. But the practice cannot be long continued without producing the most injurious consequences.

A few eminent breeders in England adopted the practice, not however, as some modern writers now insist, that it was the better practice, but under the pretence that they could not get animals out of their own herds of equal excellence. The modern theory on this subject is opposed to common sense and contradicted by experience. It is not true that the practice produces uniformity which is the main argument urged in favor of its

adoption. Many of the animals of C. Colling and Bakewell were striking illustrations of the truth of this statement, and their entire herds were less uniform than those of other good breeders who avoided the system. Whether the progeny of two animals that are bred together will inherit their characteristics will depend upon whether these characteristics have been for a long time exhibited with uniformity in the ancestors of each, and not at all upon their being related to each other. If the two be alike and of the same breed, and their ancestors have been of uniform characteristics, their produce will be more likely to be so, than if the parents were closely related.

Indeed long continued in-breeding will not only injuriously affect the constitution and tend to produce barrenness, but will frequently produce monsters, animals wholly unlike their parents, and exhibiting characteristics totally different from the breed to which they belong. I mention in illustration, the well known Longhorn bull Shakespeare. Mr. Bakewell's bull D. was got by a son of Twopenny, out of a daughter and sister of the same bull, she being the produce of his own dam. Shakespeare was got by D. out of a daughter of Twopenny. What were the characteristics of this animal thus closely in-bred? Mr. Marshall gives the following description:

"Though bred in the manner that has been mentioned, he scarcely inherits a single point of the longhorned breed, his horns excepted; his head, chop and neck remarkably fine; his chest extraordinarily deep; his brisket down to his knees; his chine thin, and rising above the shoulder points, leaving a hollow on each side behind them; his loin of course narrow at the chine, but remarkably broad at the hips, which protuberate in a singular manner; his quarters long in reality, but in appearance short, occasioned by a singular formation of the rumps. At first sight it appears as if the tail, which stands forward, had been severed from the vertebræ by the chop of a cleaver, one of the vertebræ extracted and the tail forced up to make good the joint; an appearance, which, on examining is found to be occasioned by some remarkable wreathes of fat formed around the setting on of the tail. His horns apart, he had every point of a Holderness or Teeswater bull. Could his horns have been changed he would have passed in Yorkshire as an ordinary bull of either of those breeds. His two ends would have been thought tolerably good, but his middle very deficient," &c.

*

* *

Many other instances might be given showing similar but not such remarkable results from this system of breeding. This system at first seems to increase the fattening qualities and to reduce the size of the bones-the produce appears in all respects finer and rather smaller; but after several

generations of this practice is continued the produce seems irregular, some still fine and some very coarse, and very frequently I have noticed a sullen, ugly disposition and impaired animal instinct. Another defect quite common is a defective chest, the natural result of an impaired constitution.

This paper being designed merely to contain a few general suggestions to practical men, it is not within its purpose to describe in detail the form we should endeavor to preserve in breeding these animals; the various works that have been written and are presumed to be in the hands of all good breeders contain all that is to be desired upon this head. It is likely that the best specimens of the Durham breed of cattle as we now have them, are as near perfection as could be desired.

It is, however, respectfully suggested, that the prevailing fashion upon some points in reference to their characteristics is not entirely correct. For instance undue importance is attached to hips of great length and breadth. As remarked by that high authority, Youatt, "a full hip may be an advantage, but surely a protuberant one." I like a wide and long hip, but have seldom seen animals exceeding the average in these particulars, that were not defective in the middle. There is no point more important than a good rib; by which I mean not only that the chest and barrel shall have the proper shape, but the animal shall lay flesh on the rib, a quality rarely found in animals with hips of extraordinary width.

As to the horns, the fashion requires them to be light, very light, without which the best animal is seldom placed first on the prize list; and yet certainly this is a point of no useful importance at all. Many judges also insist upon a delicate, heifer-like appearance in a bull. I respectfully suggest that animals thus fashioned are seldom good breeders. We must have some indication of masculine vigor about the head and neck of a bull, or we cannot expect a good sound constitution.

It is the prevailing practice, too, other things being equal, and frequently when they are not equal, to place the largest animal first. I do not object to size if we have compactness, but this is indispensible, and it will be found that it seldom or never is found in an animal that is much larger than the average size of his breed.

It is believed that breeders generally do not attach sufficient importance to QUALITY. By which I mean, first and most important of all, that the animal shall be a good feeder. This indispensable excellence is generally indicated by a plump, round "middle piece;" broad chine and loin; low flank; full twist; light head, with sprightly, intelligent countenance, and bones small and fine at the extremities; and particularly, by good handling. That is, a skin soft, yielding and elastic, with long, soft and abundant hair.

But we must not be satisfied with the propensity to "lay on flesh," important as it is. We must have it distributed evenly all over the valuable parts. Without this "point" made good, no animal, whatever may be its other merits, should ever be placed on the prize list. When the flesh is irregularly laid on; when the animal is, as we say, "patchy," the beef is not well "marbled," the lean portions being dark in color, tough and inferior in quality, and the fat distributed in lumps, so as to be worthless for the butcher.

In some quarters the practice prevails of breeding cattle in distinct families, beginning with some cow of distinguished reputation whose name designates the tribe. So far as my observation extends, this system has not been productive of any very successful results. At this day the individuals of these fashionable families have very little of the blood of the animals from which they derive their names, certainly not enough to claim much excellence on that account. In most instances the pedigrees will show that not more than one-sixteenth of the blood of the original favorite remains; though in later generations, we have generally very close in-and-in breeding, as if it were designed to induce the belief that there has been a strong concentration of the superior blood. This practice, instead of producing uniformity, produces diversity, some animals exhibiting a very high degree of excellence and many others being exceedingly indifferent; far inferior, indeed, to the average of the breed; exhibiting defective chests and crosses, bad constitutions and ill-temper.

The practice is calculated, if not designed, to deceive the public, by inducing the belief that these families have some superior excellence not possessed by other thoroughbred animals, which excellence will be transmitted with as much certainty as the peculiarities of a distinct breed.

It is admitted that it is not enough that our breeding animals are thoroughbred. The importance of selecting for this purpose the best individuals of the race, has been already urged. But this advantage is not secured by confining ourselves to particular families, or the practice of keeping up distinct families. That pedigree is the best in which are found the largest number of good animals, each being judged by its own merits, and not by the fact that some remote ancestor was distinguished for excellence.

The breeding herd should also be composed of animals which are not only good in themselves, but possessing in addition the merit of being good breeders. Bulls should be used which have been tested and proved to be good getters; for every intelligent breeder knows how often we find first class "show bulls" that turn out inferior breeders. The practice of breeding untried bulls, though good in every point, in a large and valuable

« PreviousContinue »