293 
AMERICAN A< tRICULT URIST. 
October, 
Breeding In-and-in. 
BY C. M. CLAY.III. 
[The following article was designed tor the September Agri- 
eultu-ist, bu' through some delay of the mail, it did not arrive 
until just as we were going to press.— Ed ] 
A Cattle Breeder's 3d No. (page 164. June No.) is before 
rae. In order to a clear understanding of the controver¬ 
sy I must restate my positions upon in-and-in breeding, 
or close breeding (Hie latter term I shall hereafter for 
brevity use) as made in the Ohio Farmer : 
“ Breeding in-and-in,’’ that is to say, breeding to dam 
or sire, or near of kin, has been too fully discussed by 
some of the most intelligent men in this country and 
England, for furtherargument. Its advantages are : 1st. 
It reduces the bone and gives to a certain extent, more 
fineness and symmetry. 2nd. It produces a tendency to 
early maturity. 3J. It suits an indolent breeder—he gets 
at home, what others go far to seek. He chooses once 
for all: w hile others make a yearly choice through life. 
4lh. It is urged as the natural order. 
Its disadvantages are : 1st. It produces idiocy, blind¬ 
ness, want of constitution, disease, and impotency. 2nd. 
It takes away all the advantages of a wide and wise se¬ 
lection of superior animals. 3d. It is practiced now, and 
always by that large class of mankind who never have, 
and never will, produce any thing memorable. 4th. It 
falsely bases all improvement upon feeding and shelter : 
ignoring selection of superior points. 5th. It is not the 
natural order as alleged. In a state of nature, the feeble 
creatures of in-and-in breeding are driven off and killed 
by the superior types from all sources: When man at¬ 
tempts to keep up in-and-in breeding, he violates this 
great law of selection, and Nature closes this false prac¬ 
tice by impotency, disease, and death. From all which 
I conclude the rule—“never breed in-and-in, when, you 
can get an equal animal of the same race, breed, or fami¬ 
ly.” These are the positions which A Cattle Breeder 
volunteered to attack and overthrow in his first No. in the 
Agriculturist. In reply I laid down 8 bases for my theo¬ 
ry. 1. Argument from analogy in the Human Race. 2. 
Experience. 3. Special Proof. 4. False Proof: Race 
Horses. 5. False Proof: Bakewell. 6. Coleman on 
.-he Dishleys. 7. R. L. Allen's “Domestic Animals, N. 
V., 1842.” 8. Jonas Webb, Southdowns: and the Col¬ 
ling theory. These bases were, some in substantiation 
of my argument; and some in overthrow of my oppo¬ 
nent’s argument. 
Now when it is remembered that I am attacked, in my 
theory by A Cattle Breeder, it will not do for him to say 
in this 3d No. that “ he will not be led off on an issue he 
himself (I) have made.” For that issue is one of the 
oases of my theory ; and if he can not overthrow it, 
which he virtually admits, he yields its truth. 1. Analo¬ 
gy. In my 2nd No. on analogy, I think I have proved all 
the evils which I predicated of close breeding in man, 
beyond controversy. If “ man outside of mental and 
sentimental phenomena, is governed by the same phys¬ 
ical laws as other animals,” which A Cattle Breeder in 
his No. 3 does not again attempt to refute : then are all 
the evils of close breeding in cattle proved, Q. E. D. 
But my opponent attempts to elude my conclusion by 
affecting that only mental and sentimental results have 
been proved—whilst the physical law is ignored in dis¬ 
regard of my lists of " defective ” physically ! Now the 
best Logicians admit that we know nothing of the modus 
qperandi of cause and effect : the w hole subject of caus¬ 
ation is therefore expressed thus. “ A follows B always, 
under similar circumstances.” If madness and idiocy 
follow the generation of near of kin, then here are re¬ 
sults of a pracl ice which overthrow nature’s great law, that 
intelligence and bodily development in a normal manner 
should go together. For nature is always consistent with 
herself, and therefore such practice of close breeding is 
wrong and should be abandoned. 
But my opponent very wisely, for successful extension 
of this dispute, escapes at once from this logical crucible, 
and ventilates once more his historical reading. What if 
the Romans were as corrupt as represented, which I do 
not deny ! What if their houses were covered with ob¬ 
scene pictures, and every utensil ornamented with what 
all modern delicacy leads us to conceal! Does that 
.throw any light upon this dispute 1 I think it all proves, 
if any thing, just the contrary of what .it is contended. I 
think it proves that mental licentiousness and physical 
degeneracy go hand in hand, that body and soul are too 
intimately connected for the one to suffer, whilst the other 
flourishes. And if all this, mental pruriency and physical 
debauchery—entering even into incest—were so common 
then we are at no loss to see at once, why it was, that 
the Goth and the Vandal crushed out the once conquer¬ 
ors of the world : in the language of Gibbon—making no 
effort and leaving no sign of ancient manhood ! But let 
us come down from “these sweeping” and “positive 
flourishes ” to plain facts. Plutarch gives us the lives of 
forty-nine of the most eminent Grecians and Romans, 
embracing all classes. Now not one of these great men, 
so far as w e know, was the fruit of incestous intercourse. 
Many of them were not only men of great intellect, but 
most of them as we are told, of most extraordinary phys¬ 
ical power and beauty ! And although the heathen relig¬ 
ion was not favorable to our ideas of chastity, yet no¬ 
where in modern times do we find more domestic delica¬ 
cy and devotion and purity of life, than is evidenced in 
the lives and letters and tragical events in the career of 
those men. I say again then that Roman and Grecian 
History does not bear out the theory of A Cattle Breeder, 
but amply sustains my own. 
So far as English history, and especially that of the 
Georges is concerned, I deny that I admitted they were 
fine “ physical ” specimens: on the contrary, I think that 
men who were adulterous, scrofulous, and mad are poor 
types of humanity, and such as do not commend them¬ 
selves to me, at least, as examples of good “ breeding ” ! 
2. “ Experience” : and “ Special Proof ” 3 : seem to be 
conceded, which only allows me an opportunity of glanc¬ 
ing at the first part of No. 3d article. For when A Cattle 
Breeder comes upon the “ Stud Book ” again, I shall be 
ready to meet him. 
“ Special Proof” No. 4., is amply sustained in my 2nd 
No. upon the Race Horse, and is not yet responded to, by 
my opponent. 
5. False Proof. I think A Cattle Breeder is indulging 
in “ sweeping flourishes,” when he says in No. 2 , “he 
(Bakewell) then bred intensely in-and-in.” In my first 
No. I showed from good authority, that he made a wide 
selection of not only “Long Wooled” sheep, but went 
into specific, or quasi-specific varieties—the South Downs: 
and that VV. C. Spooner, good authority, says, he kept 
his method of breeding “a profound secret, which died 
with him !” Now my opponent puts up in refutation of 
this, no new fact or authority, but indulges in “ sweeping 
flourishes of the pen !” I proved that, by wide and wise 
selection, Bakewell carried up the Dishleys—and that by 
“ close breeding ” his successors carried them down! I 
think that a great deal more than “nothing:” and their 
“lack of brains” was in deluding themselves with the 
“ close breeding ”—the “ concentrated blood ” theory. 
With regard to the Bakewell Long Horns, my opponent 
agrees that “ he found them in an advanced stage of 
perfection so far as symmetry of form and a capacity to 
take on flesh were concerned " : now these are the qual¬ 
ities which I admitted in the Ohio Farmer (see as above), 
were the results of close breeding, when not pressed to 
extremes ; but it. is admitted that in the Long Horns he 
did proceed to an extreme length in close breeding. What 
was the result as now admitted by all writers, and as 
shown by the reports of the Smilhfield Market! that the 
Long Horns have completely run down, having lost that 
“ advanced state of perfection ” which they once had ! 
Could any case be more in point to prove my theory? 
6. Coleman on the Dishleys. A Cattle Breeder “ de¬ 
clines receiving Coleman as authority in the stock line 
Now the reader will see by referring to my former arti¬ 
cle, that I do not give Coleman's own speculations mere¬ 
ly, but his authorities—-men who killed and sold the sheep 
in the Smithfield Market—where all the sheep in the 
United Kingdom come together with their hides of!'! If 
A Cattle Breeder will not yield to such authority as this, 
the public will! 
7. R. L. Allen. A Cattle Breeder “coincides with R. 
L. Allen, entirely, coupled with the conditions which he 
attaches to them '’ Well then what's the use of more 
words ? Mr. Allen, as quoted by me uses this “ sweep¬ 
ing and positive flourish of the pen.”—“ It. is always better 
to avoid close relationship by selecting equally merito¬ 
rious stock-getters of the same breed, from other sources.” 
Indeed ! then what becomes of the famous idea of the in¬ 
fusion of the “ concentrated blood ” by close breeding ? I 
mean no disrespect to any one when I denounce the 
whole idea of “concentrated blood” as an illusion.* 
8. Jonas Webb. A Cattle Breeder will insist that Jonas 
Webb breeds “in-and-in” in face of the facts! Mr. 
* As this term has been used here and elsewhere imposingly, 
let us strip it of its “sweeping flourish.” The blood of a “cold 
scrub” has the same quantity of nitrogen, iron, phosphate of 
lime, Sec., as the bloou of the highest 11 concentrated bloods ”— 
it. lias the same specific gravity and color—all the characteris¬ 
tics of blood ! Brandy mav be first., second, or third proof, more 
or less concentrated, but not blood. Does a “ Cattle Breeder ” 
mean purity of blood? then let him use the terms.“pure” 
and “ mixed ” bloods. If A is pure, and B is pure, and C is 
pure—then is the progeny of A, li, and C as pure as the progeny 
of A and B ; for purity is the superlative in degree, and caii 
not be transcended. In mixed bloods there can bo no contest 
between us. One or the o.licr type is ever contending for the 
ascendency—till one or the other ultimately triumphs or is lost 
(if a new mixed type of mixed bloods is possible) in an interme¬ 
diate development 1 So here my opponent is found using a 
word to convey an impression which is without existence ; or a 
term without a meaning: to sustain a superiority which is 
baseless ! I know it is generally assumed by breeders of “ im¬ 
proved stock,” as the cant plirnse is. that a high hred animal 
will impress his offspring with his characteristics over the 
“ common stock ” That.is true only when the high-bred ani¬ 
mal is a purely hred animal. If the “common stock ” is pure, of 
its kind : and the improved stock impure, then the common 
stock will most, impart its characteristics to the progeny! This 
conclusion I defy any one to overthrow. True, it may he con- 
tended that all "common ” stock or “scrubs” are mongrels 
and impure—that may be ; hut it must first be proved before it 
can be made the basis of a Philosophical theory. 
Webb I learn from persons who have conversed with 
him, divides h:s flock into 3 classes (now five I suppose) 
for the express purpose of avoiding close breeding. If 
close bree ling and the “concentrated blood” be tho 
thing, then why split it into three, and now into five, cold 
and thin dilutions ? My opponent is in this diiemma with 
regard to Mr. Webb ; if he admits my facts, he loses his 
logic : and if he admits the logic, he loses his facts ! 
As to Mr. Price’s Hereford Herd, when I know nothing 
I think it “logical” to say nothing! It is not logical 
however, to admit a single example cited, with none of 
the data given, to stand against great and universal prin¬ 
ciples ! 1 know but liltie about Hereford Cattle. They 
were tried by Henry Clay and others in Kentucky, a 
“ long time' ago,” but are now run down! The grade 
specimens which I saw, were long-bodied, long-legged; 
coarse-hided, coarse-boned, hard-feeders, and hard- 
handlers ; poor-milkers, but good oxen. My friend Wm. 
H. Sotham, brought some specimens to Kentucky lately, 
said to be thorough-bred, which corresponded pretty well 
with the grades I before saw. They were well ribbed 
however, and good in the girth, and in the crops. Now 
if close breeding (which performs to some extent the 
offices of castration) makes finer hone and a tendency to 
fatten, which I admitted, then the Herefords of Mr. Price 
may have been improved somewhat by close breeding; 
but that the advantages in the long run were not more 
than lost by the opposite evils, I must have more proof, 
before I shall think of making the concession—even in 
such case of coarse, hard, and rough stock. 
With regard to the Collings, as I have very elaborately 
discussed that subject with Ohio gentlemen in the “ Farm¬ 
er,” I will briefly state in reply to A Cattle Breeder, that 
like Bakewell, the Collings made choice and wide selec¬ 
tions of Short Horns to begin with, and he said himself 
according to Mr. Bates and others, that lie (Charles), 
never owned better cows than he bought of others ! Then 
he never improved his cattle in degree, although he may 
have done so in quantity, or number. That Colling was 
running down his stock, was no doubt the cause of his 
seeking new blood, even to the outrage of a specific cross 
with an inferior breed, as in the case of the Scotch Gal¬ 
loway. 
I will not go into particulars about the Bates. Booth, 
and other bloods alluded to by A Cattle Breeder : because 
that stock is widely owned now in America, and what I 
should say might one way or other affect the value of it, 
or at least bring me into a “muss,” which would be 
neither agreeable, nor short lived ! I must therefore be 
allowed to indulge in “ sweeping flourishes.” The result 
of all this close breeding bears out my whole theory. 
Much ot this stock, with here and there fine specimens 
which have cropped out in spite of the “concentrated 
blood,” is small in size, barren altogether, or at early ages, 
defective in the chest, unthrifty, poor milkers, diseased, and 
liable to early death. I could give memorable instances 
if I ventured. 
Tile best Short Horns are now coming up from other 
than the celebrated “ concentrated bloods ” in this coun¬ 
try and England—because like the English nobility they 
are being infused w ith new blood. 
A great deal of the flourish about certain herds is 
“Barnttm !” kept up for selfish and interested purposes ; 
but the time is at hand, when cattle must stand upon their 
merits, and not upon prestige or puffs! because the 
knowledge of good points is more generally and bettei 
understood. In making these remarks, I do not aim them 
at a Cattle Breeder, who is unknown to me, or any other 
individuals epecially. I am willing to admit that superior 
intelligence and tact should have their reward , and don’t 
mean to set myself up as more disinterested than others. 
But I speak in favor of Philosophical progress, when I 
say that much of this assumed superiority in celebrated 
herds is exaggerated ; and that breeders of cattle would 
do well to look to the cattle themselves, and to pure pedi¬ 
grees, rather than to great names, or the reputation of any 
man or any herd. 
The further remarks of a Cattle Breeder upon unifor¬ 
mity, in consequence of close breeding and “ concentra¬ 
tion of blood,” overlooks the objects of scientific breed¬ 
ing, and the whole idea of progress in animal develop¬ 
ment. Every now and then certain leading breeders 
have certain colors in the ascendency ; at one time a 
roan ; at another a red ; and again, a red and white ; and 
then a pure w hite, and forthwith all Noodledom runs mad 
after the special color! For my part I repudiate the 
whole thing of “breeding to a feather,” as unworthy of a 
sensible man of taste. All colors are good which are pe¬ 
culiar to, or characteristic of, the pure breed; and so far 
as taste is concerned, certainly a variety in color in herds 
is a large element of the beautiful. And the question now, 
is not whether the children are blondes, or brunettes, 
red, black, or nuburn haired ? but, are they well formed, 
healthy, sensible, and beautiful? So of cattle. Have 
they the best points ? Not can we perpetuate their char¬ 
acteristics to “a feather,” but can we improve them, in 
form, size, quality, milk, etc., etc.? There is old fogyism 
