IMPROVEMENT OF DOMESTIC STOCK. 
137 
would take a cross with the cart-horse, the most 
contemptible mongrels upon which we ever looked. 
We should be very glad to know where such ani¬ 
mals would be placed after a thorough training, 
and a fast turn of a few miles on the course. We 
do not mean any unfairness in our argument by 
taking the cross of two different kinds for an illus¬ 
tration, but to place the subject in a stronger point 
of view, the ass is longer-lived than the horse; now 
suppose we wish to increase the age of the latter, 
why then we should breed them together, expect¬ 
ing that we should get, to a moral certainty, this 
one good point in addition in the produce, without 
any deteriorating quality of the ass. But does the 
mule show this perfection ? And if it could be 
bred to the horse again, and its produce on till 
finally a thousandth part of the blood of the ass 
only appeared in the progeny, would not the 
shadow of its long ears still be seen, and the fal¬ 
setto of its unearthly bray occasionally be heard ? 
How is it with the cross of the Caucassian and 
Negro races ? Divine authority has asked, “ Can 
the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his 
spots?” 
Yet enough, for it would seem that the Cultiva¬ 
tor is not a convert even to its own bold assertions, 
for further on it says: “But there must be no 
breeding downward ; every cross must be upward 
both in blood and desired qualities.” 
There are some other positions that the Culti¬ 
vator takes in this article, which are denied. For 
example: “ It is rare indeed, perhaps never, that 
any single point is found in the highest degree of 
excellence, except at the expense of some other 
point." 1 ' We doubt from the sentences which im¬ 
mediately follow this just quoted, whether the 
Cultivator understands what it is talking about. 
We have not usually found, in our experience, 
“ the deepest and best milkers of the herd the 
most raw-boned, not to say the worst-looking of 
the whole,” but quite the contrary in well-bred 
Short-Horns. Did the Earl of Leicester improve 
the good milking qualities of the Devons at the 
expense of their fineness of points? Were the 
Ayrshires so improved ? And are they attempt¬ 
ing the same with the Herefords ? 
It is denied that Charles and Robert Colling were 
the originators of the Short-Horns; on the contrary, 
any reasonable amount of evidence can be pro¬ 
duced in England, to prove that Charles Colling 
repeatedly said, he never bred anything equal to 
the Short-Horn cow, which he purchased of the 
agent of the Duke of Northumberland. Where is the 
Cultivator’s authority for its assertion ? We sup¬ 
pose we shall be told of Countess that sold for 400 
guineas—the Galloway cross, and all that sort of 
thing. Well, we shall be glad to have our memo¬ 
ries refreshed with the story, and when it is re¬ 
peated in fully we shall see how much it will avail 
the Cultivator. 
Did “ Berry and Coates co-operate most effectu¬ 
ally in forwarding the improvement commenced 
by them,” [the Collings] ? This assertion is really 
too rich, and we would fain ask for the authority 
on which it is made. The Cultivator adds, that 
the reputation of being good milkers, “ does not be¬ 
long to the improved breed.” Short-Horns, [we 
suppose it means. If it does not, we should be 
very glad to know then to what breed of cows it does 
belong. But this we opine would depend very 
much how they had been “ improved.” If by a 
cross with a scrub of 5 points, on a Short-Horn 
of 20 points, why then we have nothing more to 
say. We knock under to all such “ improvements .’' 
The public will hereafter look to the Cultivator 
for a new era in cattle-breeding, and they may 
hope, some half century hence, by its new code of 
rules of “ improvement,” to get a decent milker or 
two ! If the Short-Horn breeders put up with such 
gross calumnies upon their stock, why then we are 
greatly mistaken in their spirit, and the sooner 
their herds are driven back to the place from which 
they came, the better. We did really believe that 
som efeiv examples had been given on this point, 
and that they had invariably offered to meet the 
breeders of native, or any other stock to milk with 
them—cow for cow, or herd for herd, however 
small or large the numbers might be. But since 
the Cultivator asserts the contrary, why we sup¬ 
pose we must fain believe it. But here we have 
another question to ask. Is the Cultivator sure 
that the cows mentioned in its May No., by Mr. 
Heslip, as giving so great a product of butter and 
cheese, are pure natives ? We know that Short- 
Horn bulls have been taken into Trumbull county, 
Ohio, and it is our firm belief that many of the ani¬ 
mals there are grade Durhams in some way. We 
shall take the trouble, if possible, to get at the 
facts in this case. But native or not, we think 
that the breeders of thorough-bred Short-Horns 
will have no fear of matching their animals against 
them in the production of butter and cheese, grass 
and hay fed, or kept in any other manner it pleas¬ 
es. For twenty-five cows to produce 13,715 lbs. 
of cheese, and 309 lbs. of butter, 54S lbs. each of 
the former, and 12 lbs. of the latter, we do not 
think so very extraordinary. We have heard of a 
cow making 21 lbs. of butter per week, and it was 
