98 
Relative Profits to the Farmer from 
Banff, and Moray. It is known, also, that the common type 
of Shorthorn in that part of the country, though of a sub- 
stantial, thick, fleshy, hardy, useful sort, is neither of the most 
stylish nor fashionable. In that district last year, numerous as 
the crop of young bulls were, a ready demand and remunerative 
prices were experienced. The averages were higher there 
than in the south, where the pedigrees would have led the 
owners to expect more. This circumstance is attributable, I . 
think, to the fact that in those counties every farmer has now 
become convinced of the potency of a pure-bred sire. Non- 
pedigree bulls have been discarded ; and if they were so in 
other parts of the country, we should have better bull-sales and 
infinitely superior cross-bred cattle, or rather, we should have 
fewer weedy shabby-looking beasts than have hitherto appeared. 
A decently good Shorthorn bull-calf can be bought at 35 or 
40 guineas, but even though for crossing purposes a farmer 
went the length of 100 guineas for an extra-good animal, 
he would ultimately find himself much nearer his purpose 
than trusting to a cross-bred beast at 12/. or 15/. The latter 
animal, somehow, cannot with any degree of certainty transmit 
to his stock what little good properties he may have, while the 
former not unfrequently leaves better stock than himself. As a 
rule, the better the pedigree the more noticeable is the improve 
ment on the progeny. Cross-bred animals thus well descended 
come earlier to maturity, take on more flesh, and give a better 
return for a given quantity of food than those from a non 
pedigree bull, no matter how well come the cow is. 
Now, if farmers would breed and rear the animals they feed 
to a larger extent than at present, they could have a better-bred 
sort of beast by using only pure bulls. That in itself would 
be a great gain ; but there are other advantages from home 
rearing. It gives the farmer a deeper and greater interest, no 
only in his stock, but in his farming business. Those wh 
breed, rear, and feed successfully, take something likQ a pride 
in the business, and are induced to look better after many things 
about the farm than they would otherwise do. A breeding 
stock undoubtedly requires closer attention on the part of the 
farmer than a feeding one, but few will sympathise with him on 
this score. He is all the better, and nobody is any the worse for 
his attention being steadily directed to his business. Another 
very weighty argument in favour of breeding and feeding com- 
bined is that there is much less risk from disease. I know of 
several farmers who b^eed and rear their own stock, or nearly 
so, and who have never had either pleuro-pncumonia, foot-and- 
mouth, or any other infectious disease on their premises. These 
lucky farmers happen to be located in districts where breeding 
