1817. 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
365 
arise through breeding from animals of bad constitu¬ 
tion, and thus perpetuate the disease in their offspring; 
but when we find this disease originated and prevailing 
in the same family after repeated crossing in-and-in, 
though unknown in their ancestors, it is a fair pre¬ 
sumption that this practice is inimical to the constitu¬ 
tion. * * * Mr. Mason, of Chilton, commenced breed¬ 
ing Short-Horns from the same parents as Mr. C. Col¬ 
ling, and for a certain period pursued it very success¬ 
fully; but being deprived of the privilege of sending his 
cows to the Ketton bulls, he was constrained to use 
those of his own breeding, and the losses he sustained 
in his young stock were so great that at one time his 
show cows were reduced to four; but by using the bull 
Jupiter, w’hose affinity of blood was supposed to be re¬ 
mote, he again became a successful breeder. Many 
other herds might be quoted in support of this opinion. 
Among the breeders of poultry, there are few who 
do not know that when the young ones become tender 
and difficult to rear, the remedy is found in procuring 
a change of the -male bird. Mr. William Clark, of 
Shincliff, whose fighting cocks were so notorious, con¬ 
tinued to breed from his own kind till they lost their 
disposition to fight, and stood to be cut up without mak¬ 
ing any resistance, and were so reduced in size as to 
be under those weights required for the best prizes; 
but on obtaining a cross from Mr. Leighton, they 
again resumed their former courage and weights. In 
the numerous trials afforded him, he found those that 
were bred from a hen and her male chicken, were the 
heaviest cocks and the best fighters; those from acock 
and hen of the same brood the reverse. (6) 
In pigs, the writer’s experience was considerable in 
breeding from three or four sows at the same time, all 
descended from the same parents, boar and sow: those 
were put to the same boar for seven descents or gene¬ 
rations; the result was that in many instances they 
failed to breed; in others they bred few that lived; 
many of them were idiots—had not sense to suck; and 
when attempting to walk they could not go straight. 
The best two sows of this breed were sent to other 
boars, and produced several litters of healthy pigs. In 
justice to the advocates of the in-and-in principle, it is 
but right to state, that the best sow during the seven 
generations was one of the last descent—she was the 
only pig of that litter. She would not breed to her 
sire, but bred to a stranger in blood at the first trial. 
She possessed great substance and constitution, and was 
a very superior animal. Superior animals bred in that 
way may be occasionally met with, but this falls 
far short of proving the system to be good, (c.) 
Notes. — a. It is well to notice that Mr. Wright 
declares it was under the auspices of Mr. Charles Col¬ 
ling that the Short-Horns obtained so high a degree 
of perfection as to be “ justly entitled to the appellation 
of improved Short-Horns.” This appears to be the 
view generally taken in regard to the subject in Eng¬ 
land, though we believe it has been asserted in one or 
two instances, that Mr. Colling “ bought better Short- 
Horns than he ever bred,” and that the breed, or cer¬ 
tain families of it, had, more than two hundred years 
ago, reached a degree of excellence which has not since 
been exceeded! 
b. It is necessary to observe particularly what Mr. 
Wright considers in-and-in breeding. It is evident 
that he does not intend to argue against breeding from 
animals which have some affinity of blood; for In the 
case of the fighting cocks which he cites, the best 
fighters and the largest fowls are said to have been 
produced by breeding a hen to one of her own male 
offspring. This would, at all events, produce a stock 
having three-quarters the blood of the mother. But 
those bred from a cock and hen of the same brood 
were the worst stock. These were of precisely the 
same blood, and of course were bred strictly in-and-in. 
He mentions that Mr. Mason’s stock degenerated on 
account of his using only bulls of his own herd. But 
we think the mere statement of this circumstance is 
hardly sufficient to account for the degeneracy. Mr. 
Colling, it has been stated, used no bulls for several 
generations but those of his own breeding; yet his cat¬ 
tle, with a few exceptions, rather improved than de¬ 
generated. John Rooxe, in a letter dated June 2d, 
1821, published in the London Farmer’s Journal, speaks 
of the celebrated bulls Foljambe, Lord Bolingbroke, 
Favorite, and Comet, and adds —“ What places Mr. 
Colling jn a high point of view, is the fact that he was 
the breeder of the whole line of these eminent bulls 
from Hubback, without being indebted to any other per¬ 
son for a sire.” Both of these celebrated breeders used 
bulls of their own breeding, and the different results 
are probably to be explained by the fact that Mr. Col- 
ling’s stock was originally more varied in blood, and 
that from the larger size of his herd he had a wider 
range for selection. But it is not improbable that even 
Mr. .Colling may have carried the system of breeding 
from affinities too far—especially in the case of Comet, 
referred to by Mr. Wright. 
Breeding from animals of various degrees of rela¬ 
tionship is often practiced by the best breeders, and is 
in many cases necessary in order to fix or continue 
certain important peculiarities; but care is required 
that both parents have not a tendency to the same 
defect—a caution which should be more particular¬ 
ly observed, when it is known that members of the 
same family have generally similar constitutional habits 
and tendencies. In an essay “ On the Breeding, Feed¬ 
ing, and General Management of Sheep,” by T. E. 
Pawlett, published in the sixth volume of the Jour¬ 
nal of the Royal Agricultural Society, this subject is 
considerably discussed. Mr. Pawlett observes that 
his experience in breeding had extended through more 
than twenty years, and that he had bestowed close at¬ 
tention to the subject- He has been a very successful 
competitor for the prizes of the Royal Society, the 
Smithfield Club, &c.* He is in favor of breeding from 
affinities, though he says—“ I do not, however, recom¬ 
mend that animals closely allied by blood should be put 
together generally; yet I have known very good sheep, 
for instance, produced by putting the son of a ram 
called A to the daughter of A, [that is a male and fe¬ 
male by the same sire, but different dams.] in cases 
where their points would suit each other, and I should 
never hesitate in doing so. I cannot see the utility of 
crossing for the sake of crossing or changing, unless I 
can perceive superior qualities in another person’s flock 
which mine does not possess; even in that case, if my 
neighbor’s flock were not quite so well bred as my 
own, I should long hesitate before I had anything to 
do with it, as the more I see of breeding the more I am 
convinced of the advantages to be derived from using 
well-bred, indeed the best bred animals.” 
c. The fact is well established, that there are in 
families peculiar constitutional excellencies as well as 
defects. These are transmitted hereditarily, and the 
object of the breeder is to perpetuate and increase the 
good qualities and avoid the bad ones. This is the 
great point to be observed, and in reference to it the 
constant exercise of skill and judgment is necessary. 
Some degree of affinity, as before remarked, is often 
required to secure the points and qualities which are 
desired, but if the course is carried too far, it may de¬ 
feat the object by unduly developing defects. Mr. 
Wright observes that breeding in-and-in may occa- 
* On looking over the list of awards, we find that Mr. Pawlett 
has received from the Royal Agricultural Society, within the last 
seven years, eleven prizes on Leicester, sheep, varying from five 
to twenty sovereigns each. 
