194 
AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST 
qualification or explantion, and laid down as ] 
postulates— not one of which is true. Were we 
to find such a course of remark in some publi¬ 
cations not professing to be agricultural, it would 
cause no surprise, nor should we think it worth 
while to refute it, as it is the custom of their 
conductors to give opinions founded in preju¬ 
dice and ignorance, and then stick to them all 
the closer the more conclusively they are com¬ 
batted. But we find this tissue of error in one 
of our best publications, edited by men of sci¬ 
ence and attainments, and itself part of an edi¬ 
torial article ! We are certainly surprised that 
so much error on an important subject should 
proceed from a pen so usually intelligent; and 
finding it where we do, we shall endeavor to 
put the matter right; but fearing in this, as in 
the adage, that truth must chase falsehood 
around the world before it will overtake it, so 
repeatedly has something of this sort, equally 
absurd, been published. 
In the first place, the Short-horn breed of cat¬ 
tle is not a cross between a Teeswater bull and 
a Galloway heifer. No authentic history ever 
said so. On the contrary, the Short-horns are 
an ancient and well-established breed, existing 
in the north-eastern part of England as long 
as any breed of cattle can be traced. Thus all 
the subsequent “in and in” breeding by which 
“ the character was established,” goes for noth¬ 
ing. At all events, let the Short-horns have 
originated from what they may, no accurate, 
accredited testimony has ever claimed that a 
“ Galloway” cross established the breed , or even 
confirmed it. 
Secondly. “ Ciiakles Collins” was not the 
“ originator,” nor from “ his herd are all full- 
blood Durhams descended.” We will endeavor, 
for about the fortieth time, to put this matter 
right. Charles Colling, not Collins, was a 
celebrated Short-horn breeder, on, or near the 
River Tees, in Durham, in the very heart of the 
Short-horn region, where those cattle, in the lat¬ 
ter part of the last century, for a long time be¬ 
fore, and during the years in which he bred 
them, usually went by the name of “Teeswa- 
water.” When Charles Colling commenced 
breeding Short-horns, or Teeswaters, there were 
many farmers in that neighborhood, who (and 
their fathers before them had been,) were cele¬ 
brated for the high breeding and excellence of 
their animals. From them, Charles Colling, 
and his brother, Robert Colling, obtained their 
stock; and being shrewd,'enterprising men, and 
good breeders withal, in the course of their 
practice, they brought the Short-horns into a 
notice and reputation over a considerable part 
of England that they had never before attained. 
These two men, also, from the notoriety they 
acquired, sold large numbers of cattle at high 
prices. They obtained the best animals they 
could find from which to breed, and became 
celebrated beyond any and all other breeders. 
But they neither invented , originated , nor es¬ 
tablished any thing new relative to the Short¬ 
horn breed. 
It is true, that in the year 1790, Charles 
Colling bred a cow calf, called Lady , which 
was one-eighth Galloway blood, being got by a 
three-quarter Short-horn and one-quarter Gal¬ 
loway bull. From this cow, Lady , he bred sev- 
ral calves, got by his best pure-bred Short-horn 
bulls, but he never again used the quarter-bred 
Galloway bull, called Grandson of Bolingbroke , 
which got Lady. Of course Lady's calves were 
only one-sixteenth Galloway blood, and they 
constituted but a small part of Mr. Colling’s 
herd; consequently this small portion of for¬ 
eign blood became less and less at every subse¬ 
quent cross with the pure Short-horns, (for Mr. 
Colling did not use Lady's bulls in his breeding,) 
and Mr. Colling never claimed any advantage 
or merit for it over the thorough-bred animals; 
nor would the circumstance ever probably have 
been again heard of, had not a certain Mr. 
Berry, who wrote the pretended history of the 
Short-horns for Youatt’s celebrated book on cat¬ 
tle, for certain individual purposes, having cat¬ 
tle of his own connected with this Galloway 
cross, given great prominence and merit to this 
farcical “improvement” by Colling, in the re¬ 
mote relationship of some of his own cattle with 
the Galloway blood. And it is from this ac¬ 
count, only, that almost every writer since, who 
wishes to disparage purity of blood in the 
Short-horns, quotes this miserable twaddle of 
Berry, in the inference that they are a made up 
breed, produced by a “ Teeswater bull and a 
Galloway cow!” A greater absurdity cannot 
exist, than such a theory. No such “ cross” 
has since been repeated, to public knowledge, 
and nothing at this day would sooner discredit 
the reputation of a Short-horn herd, than to in¬ 
troduce into it a Galloway bull, no matter how 
perfect of his kind the animal may be, nor how¬ 
ever celebrated may be the breeder who should 
try the experiment. So, if the Galloway blood, 
as introduced by Colling in the first place, be¬ 
ing only one-sixteenth in grade, amounted to 
any thing as altering or benefitting the Short¬ 
horn, the continued breeding up into thorough 
Short-horn blood thereafter, must have soon ob¬ 
literated every trace of it, excepting, perhaps, 
a “cropping out” in remote instances in an in¬ 
dividual animal, which, probably, no breeder of 
anyjudgment or taste, would ever make a point 
of, as excelling in Short-horn merit. 
Thirdly. Quite as erroneous is the assertion, 
that “ scarcely has there ever been a Short-horn 
breeder equally successful as a breeder of males 
and a breeder of females. The two Collings, 
during their whole course as breeders, produced 
males and females, equally good, alike. Mr. 
Bates, for many years the most distinguished 
of their successors, with cattle drawn directly 
from the best among the Collings’ herds, bred 
both bulls and cows, celebrated for their high 
excellence all over England. Mr. Stephenson, 
another noted breeder, of whom Mr. Bates pur¬ 
chased to engraft fresh blood into his herd, has 
been equally successful in breeding both sexes, 
to say nothing of Mr. Mason, the late Earl 
Spencer, Mr. Maynard, and several others. 
This idea is all a fallacy, for which a single 
physiological reason cannot be given. 
Fourthly. The next idea that we have 
quoted, that “ few breeders long maintain their 
position, there being some causes, not well un¬ 
derstood, against a high state of excellence be¬ 
ing long perpetuated,” is certainly a most ex¬ 
traordinary position for any man of the slightest 
scientific knowledge to assume. We presume 
that the person who penned that remark has 
heard at least of the science of physiology ; and 
knows that the tendency of animated nature is 
to produce its own like in the perpetuation of 
its own race. Wherefore, then, should not 
high excellence, carefully bred, be preserved in 
its own posterity ? Or, would he, to produce 
new excellence, resort to baser material with 
which to keep up his standard ? It is poorly 
worth while to argue with such absurdity, for 
not a shadow of proof can be given in its sup¬ 
port. 
And lastly, “ the introduction of new blood 
into a herd has a marked influence on the con¬ 
formation of the produce.” To be sure it has— 
a truism “ as old as the hills”—but taken in its 
connection with its context, the remark would 
mean that “new blood” always benefits the old 
to which it is introduced. This, of course, de¬ 
pends altogether upon what this new blood is. 
If of a better, and a purer quality, showing it¬ 
self in greater excellence than that upon which 
it is designed to engraft it, it will benefit, or im¬ 
prove the progeny springing from it; if not, it 
will degrade it. That is all there is about this 
doctrine of new blood, or crossing. On no sub¬ 
ject whatever is there more absurdity and non¬ 
sense, written and talked, than on this of cross¬ 
ing bloods. Most people think that it is a fatal 
error to breed from animals of the same blood 
and affinities, and that a cross directly out of 
the blood, if even into another and a baser 
breed, must be made, or all will go wrong. The 
theory, as generally taken, is full of error, and 
to give it proper explanation would require 
more pages than we now have the time or dis¬ 
position to write. We can only say that it is 
the banc of all good and thorough breeding. 
But enough for the time. It is far better to 
write nothing at all, than to propagate error, 
which must always, when adopted, result in 
manifest injury, and throw discredit on the 
cause which said efforts are intended to pro¬ 
mote. 
CHANGING SEED. 
Much stress has by some been laid upon the 
necessity of changing seed. It is true that new 
varieties are continually being introduced, of 
which many will doubtless be found more pro¬ 
ductive, and better adapted to the climate than 
the old, yet we deem it a matter of more im¬ 
portance to get good seed than that which is 
new. We stated in a former number that we 
had cultivated the same variety of potatoes for 
20 years on the same soil, and that instead of 
deteriorating, the produce had constantly im¬ 
proved in quantity and quality. This end was 
attained by selecting good sized, sound potatoes 
to plant. We have found success to follow the 
same course with other crops. We find in the 
Worcester Spy a paragraph which confirms our 
own experience, and that of many others. The 
editor of that paper says : 
In a conversation last evening, with Mr. Jon¬ 
athan Nelson, of this city, well known here as 
a substantial farmer and a reliable man, he in¬ 
formed me that he helped reap a field of rye, 
the past summer, of a little less than one acre 
and a half, yielding thirty-eight and a half 
bushels of excellent quality; that he has helped 
reap fifty-five successive harvests of rye on the 
same farm, owned by his father, (the late Dea¬ 
con Nelson,) and himself, that in all that time 
the seed had never been changed.; that the first 
of those fifty-five harvests was from seed raised 
on the same farm by the former owner, and 
that he knew not how long the process of inde¬ 
pendent husbandry had been carried on by his 
predecessor. 
Facts and theories often disagree, but nature 
is constant and true to herself, 
