Rocky Mountain husbandman. [volume] (Diamond City, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1878-01-10
LIV I STOCK.
BREEDING PAPEES.
Crossing.

to different breeds al. only to ulIIereil
stratus Of the same breed. The more com
plicated the %aptiludes or the functions
which make up the aptitudes, the less VIC
lent a cross is indicated or even admissible
thus. successful crosses with trotters Of
Eunners are generally limited to q union 0
two strains. while with swine two breeV!
are often crossed without injury to the apti
tude Of the offspring. In former article
have called attention to the fact that crossed
animals did not always produceeotisprlne
which were a medium between the parents
but that, ON the contrary. these might re
semble ether parent alone and i'll some
cases neither Of them. | have also insiste,
at such length OH the physiological princi
pies involved that / shall %contine myself i,
lhis paper more exclusively to e~practica
matters.
Crossing appears to be the great hobby o
our farmers, very few of them have pure
animals or any approaching pure blood
and is! very noticeable is that scarcely two
animals OH the same farm resemble eacl
other either in size, form, temperament OF
aptitude. And yet the farmer breeds from
these, as his father bred from similar ones
before him, and the produce continues to bt
as varied us the ancestors. Even whem i'm.
proved animals are introduced. our farmers
are not satisfied to breed in one direction,
they apparently see no chance for showing
skill in this way; but they will first cross
their native hogs with the Berkshire. then
with the Essex or Chester White, and, final
IT,, with tile Poland China and SO on, breed
Ing for Il few intermediate years, perhaps,
from the mongrels, with no attempt at Sc
lection, till they fail to produce paying re-
suits, when a different cross is resortcd to-.
And SO we have almost no native breeds
sklat are homogeneous or that can be relied
upon to transmit their forms or qualities to
their offspring.
Now, this seems to be q mistake; evidently
there are no advantages in such promiscu-
Gus crosses. but, on the contrary, many dis
advantages. | shall, therefore, try to point
cut the reasons for crossing and to Anake
plain the indications for the same. | have
asstinled in all of these papers that the OBJ
1GNt VI NJ CSdAb u lHOhts Ahdb pipitlSs etiESsSO
necessarily be. small in ANY business in
which tllere is 80 much competition. and
tl,at, finally, to insure any profit at all, it is
necessary to produce the iewest possible
number Of inferior animals. 10 be success
fnl then, every farmer should mark out the
form and aptitudcs OF the animal wl,icli
you'd be the most profitable in his particu-|
iar branch OF tanning and in his locality,
and he should continually stli i've to bring
Lis stock nearer 10 his ideal. If lie can find
no animals that approach his ideal sufficient
~ 10 be brought to 1t by selection, by care
and TODD, then he must add c~rossing-and
this brings me TO Il consideration of the
questions Involved in this proceeding.
MIR. Darwin has brought ~ great mass of
c~vilence forward to show that crossing i'll
sscreases the hardness, yigOr and size OF the
individuals produced but, after a careful
reconsideration OF this evidence, I confess, l
;sni not satisfied that his conclusions are cor
rect. His arguments, drawn from cross
A,d Standardization of plants, cannot he nc
cTpte,!, because it Is to bring an element i'm
to tile discussion which is foreign TO the
Observation-Disclosures is impossible with
our domestic animals. And, in the other
cases. there Is no evidence to show whether
tie increased vigor, etc, were due to the
crossing OF 10 tlle union of individuals that
had Grown under different Influences
whether, in fact, the same increase in vigor
would not have followed the union of relat-
ed animals that had grown on different