1859. 
AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
993 
aiul empiricism inbreeding as well as in poetics and 
medicine : and we must, as progressives, hold fast to what 
is good in the past, and strive for the “excelsior” in the 
future ! 
Cattle Breeder’s No. 4. 
In reply, I insert Mr. Bruce’s letter, which I conclude 
is all that need be said. Having proved my theory in so 
many instances—it is of but little account that here and 
there exceptions may be found. C. M. C. 
Lexington, June 3d, 1859. 
Dear Sir : Yours of the 31st ult. was received yester¬ 
day. I can give you some instances of failure from in-and- 
in breeding, also some extracts from celebrated writers 
upon the subject. Experience tells us that the greatest 
success has ever attended those breeders, and that the 
most valuable stock has resulted therefrom, who have ad¬ 
hered to remote crosses. The finest running and highest 
formed horses that have appeared in England, were bred 
from the union of two distinct stocks, the Herod and 
Eclipse. The former stock was invariably remarkable for 
stoutness and lastingness, the latter for speed, and by the 
union of these two opposite qualities, (whereby a remote 
cross was kept up,) a stock was obtained in which was 
blended a sufficiency of the requisite qualities of both to 
make first rate racing horses. There was another distinct 
stock in England which crossed well upon the Herod and 
Eclipse branches ; I allude to the Matchem or Godolphin 
Arabian stock ; and it may here be remarked that there 
has scarcely been a first rate runner on the turf in Eng¬ 
land for the last century, without more or less of the blood 
of this valuable horse. A remote cross was at that early 
day considered necessary, yet there were a few excep¬ 
tions to it as a rule, as some of the most distinguished 
horses in England were bred considerably in-and-in; 
Flying Childers, for insiance, considered the fleetest 
horse of the world. Old Fox, a celebrated racer and val¬ 
uable stallion, although not in-and-in bred, had an affini¬ 
ty of blood in his pedigree, as also other high formed ra¬ 
cers and stallions. But these exceptions arose in Eng¬ 
land in the earlier days of breeding, about the time of the 
importation of particular Barb, Turk and Arabian horses, 
that possessed peculiar and extraordinary properties as 
stock getters, and their immediate descendants constitut¬ 
ed the best racers of those days. In later days, little or 
no success has attended the efforts of those who have 
bred in-and-in. The Earl of Egremont occasionally tried 
it, as well as Lord Derby, (owner of Sir Peter Teazle,) 
but with no encouragement. Morland, in his treatise on 
the genealogy of the English Blood-Horse, expressly 
says, that incestuous crosses should be avoided. “ Breed¬ 
ing in-and-in ” is an exploded doctrine, that has been put 
at rest in England by the experience of those distinguish¬ 
ed turfmen named. It is now regarded as a violation of 
an imperious law of the whole animal kingdom. 
By reference to the London (old) Sporting Magazine for 
Oct., 1840, the Editor remarks that many instances may 
be noticed of the bad effects of too near a consanguinity, 
a few cases are mentioned for the purpose of conviction, 
viz: We find by the pedigrees of Salute, Solace, and 
Vestment, that they were all in-bred and bad : they were 
out of Dulcamara by Waxey, her dam Witchery by Sor¬ 
cerer ; Salute w'as by Muley, who was by Orville out of 
Eleanor by Whiskey, her dam the Young Giantess, the 
dam of Sorcerer. The other two were by Longw'aist: 
Whalebone was his sire, and got by Waxey, the sire also 
of Dulcamara. The Flydener mare, bred by Mr. Can¬ 
ning in 1817, was equally bad. Flydener was by Sir Pe¬ 
ter, as also was Coriolanus, his grandsire. Mr. Stirling's 
Aaronides was by Aaron out of Aaron’s dam, and he was 
considered dreadfully bad ; so was also another colt bred 
by the same gentleman, got by Aaron out of Miss Mana¬ 
ger, the grandam of Aaron. The same writer remarks 
that by referring to the Stud Book about a century ago, we 
will find many of the best horses of those days were very 
closely bred ; one reason for which, there were not so 
many horses reared at that time, consequently there was 
not l he choice which w e now possess. Whatever bene¬ 
ficial results might appear to have arisen from breeding 
in-and-in in those days, may be attributed to the fact of 
its being a combination of the best blood of which our 
forefathers could avail themselves, It is, however, very 
clear that it will not produce so valuable an animal as 
may be procured from the various sources which we are 
now in possession of. 
There was not a horse in “olden time ” that equals the 
performance of Venison, who, at three years old, travel¬ 
ed 800 miles, and won 12 out of 14 races at all distances 
from 1 to 4 miles ; he is a horse with a free pedigree, un¬ 
til we go back to the fifth generation the same blood does 
not present itself ; we then find the Herod blood on both 
sides, but so far distant as not to be objectionable. Grey 
Momus is another instance, winning seven races out of 
nine ; Prosady, bred in 1818 by Don Cossack, out of Mitre 
by Waxey, ran for a succession of years, winning 39 
times, she is free from blood too nearly related. The cel¬ 
ebrated Euphrates had also a clear pedigree, there are no 
traces of consanguinity till we get back to the Regulus 
blood, which is fourand five generations back. Liston, a 
celebrated English racer, had Highflyer blood on both 
sides, but not nearer than the fourth generation ; this ex¬ 
traordinary horse won 51 races, and continued to race un¬ 
til he was thirteen years old. Isaac, another celebrated 
racer, won 19 races in 1839, besides 22 in previous years ; 
he had no traces of consanguinity in his pedigree. In 
our own country, some who were in-and-in bred, raced 
well, but have been total failures in the stud ; Trifle, for 
instance, one of the gamest, and best four mile nags of 
her day, was by Sir Charles, he by Sir Archey, her dam 
by Cicero, he by Sir Archey, she was a total failure in the 
stud, never having produced anything of note ; Coquette, 
by Sir Archey, produced Janette and Virginia Taylor, 
both capital racers, and both by their mother’s sire ; the 
success of this experiment of Col. Johnson induced many 
others to try the same ; and to use the language of a wri¬ 
ter of that day, after this followed “ a numerous and 
rickety offspring of diversified incest , which damned this 
theory to certain and irretrievable overthrow.” It was 
generally remarked that the deterioration of the race¬ 
horse of Virginia was attributed to in-and-in breeding. 
Flirtilla, jr.. a mare of fine speed, was by Sir Archey out 
of Old Flirtilla by Sir Archey; these mares have pro¬ 
duced nothing of even mediocrity, the best one was Cas¬ 
sandra, by imported Priam out of Flirtilla, jr. ; Boston, 
the most remarkable racehorse of our own country, was 
by Timoleon, he by Sir Archey, he by imported Diomede, 
his dam by Balls Florizel, and he by imported Diomede, 
being a double cross of Diomede; Boston started in 44 
races, won 39,31 of them 4 at mile heats, 8 at 3 mile heats; 
he sired Lexington, Lecomte, Bostona, Tally-Ho, all of 
remote crosses except Lexington, whose grandam was by 
Sumpter, he by Sir Archey, not what would be styled in- 
and-in breeding. Fashion, the best mare of her day, and 
the best of the produce of her dam, is by imported Trus¬ 
tee, of a distinct family, whose breeding has been so far 
a total failure, attributed to the fact that she was bred to 
her own sire, and she also had two or more colls by her 
half-brother Mariner, who were delicate, and of no repu¬ 
tation as racers. There has come under my observation 
in the last few days, a mare, who became accidentally 
impregnated by her own brother, the colt was illy shaped, 
and died at one week old. I fear I have said too much, 
but numbers of other instances might be cited, to prove 
that in-and-in breeding will not do, and that the breeders 
of the present day avoid it. Yours, S. D. BRUCE. 
C, M. Clay, Esq. 
---—» tm . --- 
Written for the American Agriculturist.—Prize Articles. 
The Dairy—XI. 
Conclusion. 
The preceding articles which have been writ¬ 
ten on the management of the Dairy, have con¬ 
sidered it mainly as a separate branch of agri¬ 
cultural production ; a business of itself, the sole 
occupation, or engrossing one of the farm, and 
which it should be, to make it of the highest 
profit. Yet, both butter and cheese making are 
practiced as incidentals, with many small farm¬ 
ers, and are items among the many which go to 
make up the aggregate products of the smaller 
farms in many parts of the country where 
miscellaneous husbandry is pursued. Almost 
every farmer living north of the cotton and sugar 
growing States, makes his own butter. Many in 
the planting States do the same. They always 
should do so where grass will grow, and Winter 
forage can be procured for cow-keeping. For 
immediate use, no matter where the locality, the 
butter is usually good, if properly made, and our 
directions if strictly followed, will produce the 
article. With cheese it is otherwise. Made in a 
poor grass country, or in a region where the grass 
is better fitted for fattening cattle than producing 
milk, the cheese will, of necessity, be an inferior 
article. So, too, even in a good dairy country, 
where cheese making is subsidiary to some¬ 
thing else, being made in small quantity, it will 
be inferior. We never tasted a first quality cheese 
from a small dairy , unless extraordinary pains and 
expense attended its manufacture. Not that we 
would at all discourage the small dairyman, or 
household cheese-making for family use, but we 
wish to impress it most strongly upon the cheese- 
maker, that it is a vocation of itself, and when 
undertaken, requires the utmost of his skill and 
industry to succeed in its best possible results, as 
to quality and profit. Therefore, if you make the 
dairy a considerable part of your farm production 
for sale, make it altogether so, or to such extent 
that your other productions shall be subsidiary to 
it. We believe in the division of labor on the 
farm as much as in the factory, where it £an be 
done to advantage, and of this every man of 
common understanding can assure himself in a 
year's time, if he will look at the composition ot 
his soil and the cultivation practiced by the good 
farmers around him. 
We have already indicated the best dairy land— 
so far as yet proved—in the United States. We 
may have others far in the northwest not yet de¬ 
veloped. We hope so, for it is a great way and 
a great expense to send cheese from Buffalo, or 
Cleveland, to Minnesota, or Pike’s Peak. To 
New-Orleans, and the far southwest beyond, it 
must inevitably go from the north, for they can 
not make a good article in that distant region of 
fervid suns, and parched grasses. Thus, then, 
we must husband our northern dairy soils. They 
possess treasures both now and for the future 
which we have not yet fully appreciated, and, 
with the great majority of their occupants, will 
not be fully appreciated until a still greater de¬ 
mand on their productions has taught them their 
value. 
We have preached our “ Sermon.” We pro¬ 
pose now to make the “application.” It may be 
supposed that all good grass lands are fit for the 
dairy, irrespective of climate, and that all good 
dairy lands are equally good for feeding orfatten- 
-ing cattle. Such supposition is a great mistake, 
and in that mistake large amounts of labor and 
capital, in the aggregate, have been lost in the 
misapplication of both. For instance : No finer 
grass countries exist than large portions of Ken¬ 
tucky, Tennessee, Ohio, and several other west¬ 
ern States. But they are not dairy lends. They 
are “ grazing ” lands. A bullock or a sheep will 
fatten astonishingly there—a bullock to an acre 
of Summer pasture in many cases—hut there is, 
comparatively, as we have spoken of the profita¬ 
ble market qualities of the articles, neither butter 
nor cheese in that grass, while of beef, mutton, 
and tallow there is an abundance. In portions of 
Ohio, Pennsylvania, New-York, New-Jersey, and 
the Nevv-England States, on the contrary, as we 
have already stated, there is any quantity of the 
best butter and cheese in their grasses, yet but 
little of beef, mutton, and tallow. Still, the gras¬ 
ses, in their species and variety, are the same— 
the climate and soils alone make the difference. 
Kentucky glories in her blue grass. Her Short 
Horn bullocks reared upon it, and “ fed off” with 
their gourd-seed corn, astonish even Englishmen 
in our Eastern markets. Yet the same blue 
grass grown upon our northern hills fattens few 
or no bullocks at all, but produces a cheese which 
makes the Kentuckian’s mouth water, and a butter 
which will go round the world and come back 
sweet and palatable. Understand us : by Ken¬ 
tucky, we mean all that broad, rich, western ag¬ 
ricultural region, where grasses are so fertile in 
their animal fattening qualities. 
This division of labor we must come to, and, 
indeed we are fast arriving at. Railroads have 
now brought our far-away western farmers into 
easy communication with our eastern dairymen. 
The cheese-maker of Cattaraugus, Otsego, or 
Oneida Counties, (N. Y.,)can buy his beef cheap¬ 
er in the selection of a bullock from the Illinois 
drover at the nearest railway station, than to 
rear it on his own farm. He can even do so with 
his pork and mutton, beyond what he may inci¬ 
dentally feed from the offal of his dairy; and, that 
