AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
43 
intestinal canal.” It is not confined to the brute 
creation. 
The first milk of cows should not be thrown 
away. Half a pail full may be given to the new¬ 
ly-calved cow, and it will benefit her. The milk 
may also be thrown into the swill-barrel, and 
when mixed with other slops can be fed out to 
pigs. 
--eg- 4 — —- » qa> -— 
For the American Agriculturist. 
Breeding in-and-in—Cassius M Clay’s 
Reply to “A Cattle Breeder.” 
My November article in the Ohio Farmer, has 
aroused the “ in-and-in’s ” like the bursting of a 
bomb-shell! Two articles in the Ohio Farmer, 
one in the American Agriculturist (page 10), and 
two more promised! I am likely to have my 
hands full! My very distinguished friend the 
Rev. Robert J. Breckinridge, for whose opinions 
on Theology I have the most profound respect, 
led off in this error some years ago, and was 
followed up by Geo. W. Johnson, Esq., of Scott 
Co., Ky., in a still more elaborate article. I have 
been often asked to reply to those articles by 
Kentucky breeders ; but so general was the 
opposite belief and practice, that we all regarded 
the theory as the amiable eccentricity of those 
excellent gentlemen : and when the agricultural 
report of the Ohio Board of Agriculture renewed 
the theory, I deemed it only necessary to glance 
at the arguments on both sides, trusting to the 
axiomatic statement of philosophical facts to 
carry my point with reflecting men. “ A Buck¬ 
eye ” comes to my relief very promptly, claiming 
my theory as his own ! and my special and worthy 
friend the secretary of the Board, only attempts 
a defence by widening the meaning of “ in-and- 
in ” breeding to the extent of breeding only spe¬ 
cific or quasi specific breeds to each other and 
not “ crossing ! ,: My complimentary friend of 
New-York, therefore deserves a notice in passing, 
whilst the smoke is clearing off the home battle 
field! 
1. Argument from Analogy. —In the human 
race the laws of “ in-and-in breeding ” are not 
questioned as I have laid them down. Near of 
kin in almost all nations have been forbidden to 
marry—not as is contended, for moral considera¬ 
tions simply, but principally on account of the 
physical ills which follow. If such laws are based 
on moral considerations, and to preserve the 
sanctity of the family relation even in thought, 
then should the brother be forbidden to maVry the 
brother’s wife, and not allowed to marry two or 
more sisters, &c. But such has not been the 
case : on the contrary, the every day observation 
of every one proves the physical evils of marry¬ 
ing near of kin. Georgia has just prohibited the 
intermarriage of first cousins, by very heavy pen¬ 
alties : and such a law had nearly passed this 
State Legislature last year: and such ought to be 
the law the world over. In-and-in breeding, therty 
in the human race, producing, idiocy, a loss of 
all the senses, weakness of constitution, dimin¬ 
ution in size, disease, and impotence, imposes 
on the advocates of this theory to prove that the 
laws of other animals are not the same. It is 
not sufficient to say that man is governed by his 
mind and sentiments, as well as the appetites and 
instincts, since it is not a ’psychological but physical 
fact which is to be determined. I boldly assert 
without fear of successful refutation, that man, 
outside of mental and sentimental phenomena, 
is governed by the same physical laws as other ani¬ 
mals. 
2. Experience. —“ A Cattle Breeder ” attempts 
to avoid the stunning force of the argument that 
the million who produce nothing memorable, are 
in-and-in breeders, by claiming that they do not 
select within the rules of his theory ! Now the 
in-and-in theory logically rejects selection : for if 
breeding the sire to the offspring does the work 
of improvement, what right has he to select, which 
is our theory 1 But the truth is, your correspondent 
assumes that which is not the fact, viz., that there 
is generally an indiscriminate breeding without 
regard to the best in each man’s possession. On 
the contrary, I venture the assertion, that among 
the rudest and most careless breeders, the best 
lamb, the best calf, the best colt, and the best pig, 
is reserved as a stock animal! 
3. Special Proof. —Let us now examine our 
own practice: I give my experience for what it 
is worth, and I say I have all my life found emi¬ 
nent advantage in introducing blood not of near 
of kin into my live stock—chickens not excepted. 
I ask every reader, what is his experience 1 with¬ 
out fear of the answer. The Campbells of oui- 
county for many years have carried the largest 
hogs to the Cincinnati and Louisville markets, 
the largest swine markets in this country or the 
world ; they have never been beaten.. Now their 
theory and practice is, when they have generally 
600 hogs, to go from home to select a breeder, 
and never to breed in-and-in ! We have all been 
convinced of this theory as Short Horn breeders ; 
so that we have repeatedly sent to England for 
new bloods and have even gone to Ohio for the 
same purpose ! 
4. False Proof. — Race Horses. —Your corres¬ 
pondent refers to the “ Stud Book,” as proof that 
in-and-in breeding is the thing—saying such was 
the practice “ even down to a late day !” Well, 
I am glad these breeders are growing wiser than 
their sires for at “a late day,” then, he admits they 
have changed their practice ! I have not been 
familiar with the “ Stud Book,” and can not an¬ 
swer for the first part of the statement; but I do 
say, here in Kentucky, where we have produced 
race horses making the best time in the world, 
there is not a single breeder that would ever think 
of such a thing as in-and-in breeding ! 
5. False Proof. — Bakewell. —I deny that Bake- 
well’s “rule was breeding in-and-in.” W. C. 
Spooner, says that Bakewell kept his method of 
breeding “ a profound secret,” and “ it died with 
him !” This same author, member of the Roy¬ 
al Council of Veterinary Surgeons in England, 
says : that it was known, however, that Bake¬ 
well, on the contrary did make a “wide selection 
of sheep ” in the beginning. The Leicester being 
the principal stock, he is supposed to have used 
also the Warwickshire, the old Lincoln, theTees- 
water, the Rvland, and the South Down.” Now, 
here is a man on the ground—and one of the best 
English writers on sheep, who proves all the op¬ 
posite of the in-and-in theory, so far as Bakewell 
is concerned. But so soon as Bakewell died,and 
close breeding was kept up by his successors, the 
sheep failed, as all impure bloods will do, when 
the original active methods of crossing fail! This, 
Spooner, who was a great admirer of the Dishley 
Sheep, admitted ; for he says that: “ weakness 
of constitution and sterility,” and a “tendency 
to lessen in size ” came to be defects of that breed 
of sheep which since Bakewell’s time have been 
remedied “ by crossing with the Cotswolds and 
Bampton Notts.” 
6. Coleman on the Disnley's. —Coleman in his 
European agriculture, Vol. 2, p. 336, says ; in “a 
letter from an eminent Smithfield salesman,” he 
finds these words : “ It is necessary that I should 
qualify these observations by saying that no doubt 
Leicester sheep (Dishleys, or Bakewells,) have 
been of immense service ; and some of the best 
of them have been exceedingly good, having tho 
tendency to fatten more quickly than others 
But you will find my dislike of them shared by al¬ 
most all practical men. They certainly have degen¬ 
erated exceedingly, becoming small andlighl of flesh 
* * * * The average weight of those coming to mark¬ 
et is about seventeen pounds per quarter. * * * * 
They have lost size, flesh and worth /” The italics 
are mine. Again Coleman says : “ it is admitted 
that the Dishleys are not hardy.'" Now what 
does all this prove 1 1, That Bakewell did not 
take a pair of Leicesters and breed in-and-in with 
them, and with good feed and shelter (all the re¬ 
quisites) make a celebrated flock ! But that he 
first made “ a wide selection ” of the “ improved ” 
Leicesters from other flocks, like the Collings, and 
then used a very wide range of crosses running into 
not only varieties of long wooled sheep, but into 
distinct specific varieties, as the South Downs ! 
2. That by this process he made a flock of world¬ 
wide reputation. 3. That the Rules of the Bake¬ 
well Club kept up a close breeding, and in conse¬ 
quence, the breed and fame of the Dishleys ran 
down, and was only saved from utter ruin by 
crossing on the Cotswolds and Bampton Notts! 
7. R. L. Allen’s “Domestic Animals, N. Y., 
1852,” page 12; says: “ Breeding in-and-in, or 
propagating from animals nearly allied, may be 
tolerated under certain circumstances, between 
those of the same generation as brother and sis¬ 
ter.” But “ It is always better to avoid close re¬ 
lationship, by the selection of equally meritorious 
stock-getters of the same breed from other 
sources.” 
8. Jonas Webb.—South Downs. —Jonas Webb, 
of Babraham, Cambridgeshire, England, has pur¬ 
sued neither the practice of in-and-in breeding, 
nor crossing on sheep of specific differences. He 
began his herd by “ a wide selection ” of the best 
of the breed, and placed them in three distinct 
classes, and is now forming four or five ; with a 
view to judicious avoidance of “ close-breeding.” 
The consequence is, his flock is world wide in its 
reputation ; clear of all the defects of the Bake¬ 
well breed, and still advancing in reputation ; be¬ 
cause he has followed, and yet follows the true 
physiological laws. But why need I multiply au¬ 
thority, or argument 1 I know nothing of the 
Hereford Herd alluded to; but venture that if the 
truth was all known, “ A Cattle Breeder ” would 
be as wide of the mark there, as in the Bakewell 
case, and the “ Stud Book !” With regard to 
the old Colling’s tale, which has made fools of so 
many men, the ground is too old to be again 
traversed in this article, and in this day ! I will 
only say again that C. Colling: 1. Made a wide 
selection of the best herds to start upon. 2. That 
from all the evidence, he never had a better breed¬ 
er than Hubback, which he bought of another. 3. 
That he admitted himself that he never had a 
better cow than Lady Maynard. 4. That the 
breeding in-and-in, so far as it went, injured the 
stock. The “ Dutchess tribe,” which stock I 
am now breeding to, through a grandson of Grand 
Duke (10,264) is all the worse for the close breed¬ 
ing, which is now abandoned by Mr. Thorne, and 
others holding that stock. 5. That purity of 
blood is better than crosses on specific breeds. 
6. The Galloway and Kyloe alloy is repudiated. 
7. That the Collings, or at least Charles, was a 
prime Barnum and Humbug, and should never 
again be named by philosophical breeders, or log¬ 
ical essayists. Asking your pardon for so long 
trespassing upon your columns, in a controversy 
so manifestly one-sided, I await another broad¬ 
side from the “ Rest of mankind.” 
White Hall, Ky., Jan. 5,1859. C. M. Clav. 
