FIFTH ANNUAL YEAR BOOK — PART VI. 357 



dififerences in cost that might arise, would be more than counterbalanced by 

 the fact that a more uniform lot of bulls could be secured than it would be 

 possible to obtain if individuals purchased them. Different methods might 

 suit different communities but they should, of course, be agreed upon before 

 hand. After having used these bulls for one or two years, according to the 

 agreement of the co-operating farmers, it should be understood that ex- 

 change would take place between them. For reasons that will appear later 

 the writer would advise an exchange every year. That is, farmer A, who 

 owned bull No. 1 the first year, would turn his bull over to farmer B, and B 

 would turn his over to C, etc. If thought best, this exchange might be 

 made on a money basis rather than without any money consideration for 

 the reason that some farmers would not take as good care of their stock as 

 others. In other words, conditions should remain such that it would be to 

 the advantage of each man to take the best of care of his bull in order to be 

 able to dispose of him advantageously at the end of the stated time. It might 

 be a good plan to have a competent disinterested committee set a value on each 

 bull at theend of each year and then have exchanges made on that basis. In case 

 a bull should become unmanageable or otherwise objectionable the person 

 who owned him at that particular time would have to stand the loss. This 

 method of exchange would make it possible to get the full value out of each 

 bull, as they could all remain in service as long as they were profitable 

 breeders, and hence the necessity of buying an expensive bull every two years 

 would be done away with. 



While to get the full value out of each bull is of sufiBcient importance to 

 make it worth while for farmers to co-operate to the extent mentioned there 

 is still another factor which would prove of equal if not of greater value that 

 would incidentally accrue from such co-operation. Some time ago The 

 Gazette published a number of articles from Prof. W. M. Hays of the 

 Minnesota Experiment Station entitled ^'Breeding Animals and Plants." 

 In some of those communications Professor Hays advocated county breeding 

 of different classes of farm animals and brought out the fact that county co- 

 operation in breeding would make it possible to carry on extensive opera- 

 tions with a great many individuals. Breeding on an extensive scale, it was 

 pointed out, would afford an opportunity to measure the breeding value o 

 the males in terms of their offspring and at the same time would also make 

 it possible to compare the breeding value of the females. Breeders are well 

 aware of the fact that individuals of exceptional and superior value, whether 

 in the plant or in the animal kingdom, are comparatively few and if progress 

 is to be made in the development of a species we must find a method by 

 means of which these few superior individuals can be found. Plant breeding 

 as compared to animal breeding is much simpler because one may own 

 millions of individuals of a variety of grain and hence, if he follows correct 

 methods of selection, it is entirely possible for one man to originate or to 

 improve a variety of grain in from ten to fifteen years. With domestic 

 animals the question can not be solved in so short a time, first because they 

 do not multiply so rapidly and second because one man can own only a 

 comparatively small number of individuals. 



By co-operation in bull ownership, as above recommended, the farmers 

 would find an excellant opportunity for making comparisons among the bulls 

 in terms of their offspring, especially so, where exchanges were made 



