St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-10-07
FASHION AND FANCY

In Shorthorns Discussed by Col.
William Warfield in Breeders
Gazette.
1t seems to be a sore temptation to
some men to disparage the possessions
of others. If we think our stock is good,
there, there is no harm in saying so. If
we think it better than our neighbOr's
it is our duty to keep that to ourselves.
Ii we know our cattle are the darlingS
of fashion it is not our Christian duty
to proclaim the solidly bred cattle of
Onr neighbOr to be questionable.
Granting that they are not fasbiona-
BILE, there is an immense gap betwe en-
that and the meaning implied in un-
fashionable. The non-fashionable are
those whose value Is not enhanced by
the possession of some real or imagin-
airy excellence. The questionable are
those whose value is decreased by the
presence of some real or imaginary bad
quality. This distinction ought to be
held fast to and honest men ought to
do their utmost to protect each other
and their neighborS by insisting on a
clear recognition of this distinction.
Now we have large class of pedi-
grees which are properly classed as I'M
fashionable, though forming, perhaps,
The most extreme case among them.
They are popularity spoken of as lost
records. They are the descendants Of
imported cattle whose pedigrees were
all right when imported, but by neglect
and want OF proper action at the proper
time by the owners the thread has been
lost. We only know that they are
pure bred by the general testimony
nIn0r
specific proof of properly preserved
pedigree. OF course this is q flaw, and
generally flaw which cannot be sup
piled. When this is so the pedigree
ought not TO be admitted into any we'll
bred herd, and consequently the cattle,
no matter how good, become unfaShiOn-
able.
Again, he says in regard to out
crosses:
What, however, would be the effect
of an outcrOss in America to-day? We
have good many cases Of cattle which
trace to the american Woods" Are
these questionable? No. they are
not Shorthorns, at all. They are
doubtless just as good in
many cases as the most approved sorts.
But we have standard, and that stand
ard says that all pedigrees must trace by
every line 10 all English source. 1ELucy
fail to conform to this rule. why they
cannot be reckoned on as ShOrthOrns at
all. 1t certainly appears to an unpre-
JUDGED eye as a little singular that pedi-
grees can be made up in England on any
kind of foundation with five crosses of
recorded ShOrthorn bulls when fifty or
five hundred such crosses can do moth
ing for an American foundation. 1t is
not only singular but highly illogical.
But it is written in the laws by which
we are bound and such pedigrees can
only be abandoned to the fate of grades.
Now it is quite common to reckon all
such pedigrees not as grades, or no ped
igrees at all, but as "unfashionable."
Not only is this. but great quantity of
other stuff of this sort is marked with
the same label. For instance, In the
early days we had large number of
forgeries. Some of these were inten-
tional frauds and others were caused by
ignorant people adding to the last cow
in the pedigree the pedigree of her sire.
These were in some eases added to ma
tive cows, and consequently made
scrubs appear to the uniformed to be
well bred. These, of course. are no
pedigrees at all, but frauds, and worthy
of exposure. Tpe line that divides
them from really questionable pedi-
grees is distinct one, and ought to be
carefully observed.