(1) If the elements were only capable of combining with each other in simple ratios, the number of their combinations would be as limited as that of the letters of the alphabet; but as one, two, or more atoms of oxygen can combine with one, two, or more atoms of other elements, we can assign no limits to the number ofpossiblecombinations. There are hundreds of distinct substances formed of but two elements, namely, hydrogen and carbon.
(2) In a paper by Professor Sullivan, of Dublin, the conversion of one of these substances into anotheroutsidethe animal mechanism, is almost incontrovertibly proved.
(3)Experimental Inquiry into the Composition of some of the Animals Fed and Slaughtered as Human Food.By John Bennet Lawes, F.R.S., F.C.S., and Joseph Henry Gilbert, Ph.D., F.C.S.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society.Part II., 1860.
(4) From the Greekplasso, "to form." Plastic materials are sometimes termedformativeelements; both terms imply the belief that they are capable of giving shape, or form, not only to themselves, but also to other kinds of matter not possessed of formative power.
(5) The slow conversion of phosphorus into phosphoric acid takes place in the animal organism; its gradual oxidation in the open air gives rise only to an imperfectly oxidised body—phosphorous acid. But the latter fact does not invalidate the general proposition, that the heat emitted by a substance undergoing the process of oxidation is proportionate to the amount of oxygen with which it combines, and is not influenced by the length of time occupied by the process, further than this, that if the oxidation beveryrapidly effected, a portion of the heat will be converted into anequivalentamount of light.
(6) This statement is not absolutely correct, but the range of variation is confined within such narrow limits as to be quite insignificant.
(7) Doubt has recently been thrown on the truth of this belief by Frankland, Fick, and Wislicenus.
(8) The results of Savory's experiments on rats appear to prove that animals can live on food destitute of fat, sugar, starch, or any other fat-forming substance. I think, however, that animals could hardly thrive on purely nitrogenous food. The conclusions which certain late writers, who object to Liebig's theory of animal heat, have deduced from Savory's investigations, appear to me to be quite unfounded.
(9) So termed because it is the basis of the common oils; the fluid portion of fat is composed of oleine.
(10) The termdryis applied to thesolidconstituents of the food. Thus, a pig fed with 100 lbs. of potatoes would be said to have been supplied with 25 lbs. of dry potatoes, because water forms 75 per cent. of the weight of those tubers.
(11) The amounts of "mineral matter" are too high, owing to the adventitious matters (dirt) retained by the wool.
(12) This pig was completely analysed by Lawes and Gilbert.
(13) The results of recent and accurately conducted investigations prove that men engaged in occupations requiring the highest exercise of the intellectual faculties, require more nutritious food, and even a greater quantity of nutriment, than the hardest worked laborers, such as paviours, and navvies. I have been assured by an extensive manufacturer, that on promoting his workmen to situations ofgreaterresponsibility butlessphysically laborious than those previously filled by them, he found that they required more food and that, too, of a better quality. This change in their appetite was not the result of increased wages, which in most cases remained the same—the decrease in the amount of labour exacted being considered in most cases a sufficient equivalent for the increased responsibility thrown upon them.
(14) As ammonia, urea, uric acid, or hippuric acid; all of which are nearly or perfectly mineralised substances.
(15) The excrements of animals are capable of evolving, by combustion, enormous amounts of heat.
Cross Breeding.—For many years past feeders have zealously occupied themselves in the improvement of their stock, and the result of their labors is observable in the marked superiority of the breeds of the present day over their ancestors in the last century. The improvement of animals designed as food for man is effected by keeping them on a liberal dietary, by selecting only the best individuals for sires and dams, and by combining the excellencies of two or more varieties of a species in one breed. A species consists of a number of animals which exhibit so many points of resemblance, that they are regarded by the great majority of naturalists to be the descendants of a single pair. If we except the believers in the hypotheses relative to the origin of existing varieties of animals and plants, propounded by Lamarck, Darwin, and other naturalists of the "advanced school," there is a general belief in the immutability of species. The individuals of an existing species, say dogs, can never acquire the peculiar features of another species; nor can their descendants, if we except hybrids, ever become animals in which the characteristics of the dog tribe are irrecognisable. By various influences, such as, for example, differences in food and climate, and domestication, a species may be split intovarieties, orbreeds, all of which, however, retain the more important characteristicsof the primordial type. There appears to be no limit to the varieties of dogs, yet one can perceive by a glance that there is no specific difference between the huge Mont St. Bernard dog and the diminutive poodle, or between the sparse greyhound and the burly mastiff. All the varieties of our domestic fowl have been traced to a common origin—the wild Indian fowl (Gallus bankiva). Even Darwin admits that all the existing kinds of horses are, in all probability, the descendants of an original stock; and it is generally agreed that the scores of varieties of pigeons own a common ancestor in the rock pigeon (Columba livia).
As certain individuals are grouped by naturalists into species, so particular species, which in habits and general appearance resemble each other, are arranged under the head of genus. The horse, the ass, and the zebra are formed on nearly the same anatomical plan; they are therefore classed together, and designated the genusEquus, a term derived from the Latin wordequus, a horse—that animal being regarded as the type, or perfect member of the group. Thus the horse, in the nomenclature of the naturalist, is termedEquus caballus; the ass,Equus asinus; and the zebra,Equus zebra. By a further extension of this principle of classification, very closely allied genera are united under the term offamily.
The different varieties of the same species breed, as might be anticipated, freely together; but it frequently happens that two individuals of different species pair, and produce an animal which inherits some of the properties of each of its progenitors. These half-breeds are termedhybrids, ormules, and we have familiar examples of them in the common mule and the jennet. As a general rule, animals exhibit a disinclination to breed with other than members of their own species; and although the interference of man may overcome this natural repugnance, he can only effect the fruitful congress of individuals belonging to closely allied species, being members of the same genus. Hybrids in the genusEquusare very common. A cross has been produced between the he-goat andthe ewe; the camel and the dromedary have bred together; and Buffon succeeded in producing a hybrid in which three animals were represented—namely, the bison, the zebu, and the ox. On the other hand, attempts to effect a cross between animals belonging to different families have generally failed; nor is it at all probable that a cross will ever be produced between the pig and the sheep, between the horse and the cow, or, most unlikely of all, between the dog and the cat.
It is the general belief that hybrids are sterile, or, at least, that they are incapable of propagationinter se. This may be true with respect to the hybrids of species not very closely allied; but that there are exceptions to the rule is quite clear from Roux's experiments with hares and rabbits. This gentleman, who is, or was, the president of a French agricultural society, but who makes no profession of scientific knowledge, has succeeded, after several failures, in producing a fruitful cross between the rabbit and the hare. This hybrid has received the name of leporide (from the Latinleporinus, pertaining to a hare), and it is different from former crosses, in being five parts hare, and three parts rabbit. M. Roux has bred this hybrid during the last eighteen years, and has not observed the slightest appearance of decay of race manifest itself up to the present, so that, for all practical purposes, the leporide may be regarded as an addition to the distinct species of animals. The leporide fattens rapidly, and with but little expenditure of food. Sold at the age of four months, it realises, in France, a price four times greater than that commanded by a rabbit of the same age; and at a year old it weighs on an average ten pounds, and sometimes as much as sixteen pounds. It breeds at four months, continues thirty days in gestation, and yearly produces five or six litters of from five to eight young. To produce this hybrid is by no means difficult. A leveret, just old enough to dispense with the maternal nutriment, should be placed with a few doe rabbits of his own age, apart from other animals. He will soon become familiar with the does,and when they attain the age of puberty, all the rabbits save one or two should be removed. Speedily those left with the hare will become with young, upon which they should be removed, and replaced by others. After this the hare should be kept in a hutch by himself, and a doe left with him at night only. As the hare is naturally a very shy animal, it will only breed when perfect quietness prevails. The half-bred produced in the first instance should now be put to the hare, and a cross, three parts hare, and one part rabbit, obtained. The permanent breed should then be obtained by crossing the quadroon doe leporide, if I may use the term, with the half-bred buck.
I have directed attention to the production of the leporide because I believe that the problems in relation to it, which have been solved by M. Roux, have an important bearing upon the breeding of animals of greater importance than hares and rabbits. Here we find a race of animals produced by the fusion of two species, which naturally exist in a state of mutual enmity, and which differ in many important respects. The hare and the rabbit are respectively of but little value as food, at least they are of no importance to the feeder; yet a cross between them turns out to be an excellent meat-producing animal, which may be reared with considerable profit to the feeder. It is thus clearly shown that two kinds of animals, neither of which is of great utility, may give rise to an excellent cross, if their blood, so to speak, be blended in proper proportions. A half-bred animal may be less valuable than its parents, but a quadroon may greatly excel its progenitors. The goat and sheep are so closely related that they are classed by naturalists under one head—Capridæ. Some kinds of sheep have hair like goats, and certain varieties of goats have fleeces that closely resemble those on the sheep. There are sheep with horns, and goats without those striking appendages. The Cape of Good Hope goat might easily be mistaken for a sheep. It would seem, judging by the results of Roux's experiments, that there is no great difficulty in the way of obtaining a cross between the sheepand the goat. I do not mean an ordinary half-breed, but a prolific hybrid similar to the leporide. Of course, it is impossible,a priori, to say whether or not such a hybrid race, supposing it produceable, would be valuable; but as goats can find a subsistence on mountains where sheep would starve, it is possible that an animal, essentially a sheep, but with a streak of goat blood in it, could be profitably kept on very poor uplands. Whether a race of what we might termcapridesbe formed or not we have derived most suggestive information from M. Roux's experiments, which I hope may be turned to account in what is by far the most important field of enquiry, the judicious crossing of varieties of the same species.
It is aquæstio vexatawhether or not the parents generally exercise different influences upon the shape and size of their offspring. Mr. Spooner supports the supposition—a very popular one—that the sire gives shape to the external organs, whilst the dam affects the internal organisation. I have considerable doubt as to the probability of this theory. The children who spring from the union of a white man with a negress possess physical and intellectual qualities which are nearly if not quite themeanof their parents; but the offspring of parents, both of the same race—be it Caucasian, Mongolian, or Indian—frequently conform, intellectually and corporeally, to either of their progenitors. Thus, of the children of a tall, thin, dark man, and a short, fat, fair woman, some will be like their father, and the others will resemble their mother, or, perhaps, all may "take after" either parent. Sometimes a child appears to be in every respect unlike its parents, and occasionally the likeness of an ancestor appears in a descendant, in whom no resemblance to his immediate progenitors can be detected. It is highly probable that both parents exercise, under most circumstances, a joint influence upon the qualities of their offspring, but that one of them may produce so much greater an effect that the influence of the other is not recognisable, except perhaps to a very close observer. But I doubt very much that any particular organ of the offspring is, as a rule, more liable to theinfluence of the sire than of the dam, orvice versâ; and the breeder who believes that the sire alone is concerned in moulding the external form of the offspring, and who consequently pays no attention to this point in the dam, will often find himself out in his reckonings. In order to be certain of a satisfactory result, the dam should in every respect be equal to the sire. In practice, however, this is not always the case, for as sires are so few as compared with the number of dams, the greatest efforts have been directed towards the improvement of the former.
There is, or ought to be, a familiar maxim with breeders, that "like begets like, or the likeness of an ancestor." This is a "wise saw," of which there are many "modern instances:" the excellencies or defects of sire or dam are certain to be transmitted through several generations, though they may not appear in all. As a general rule, good animals will produce a good, and defective animals a defective, offspring, but it sometimes happens that a bull or cow, of the best blood, is decidedly inferior, whilst really good animals are occasionally the produce of parents of "low degree." If the defects or excellencies of animals were ineradicable there would be no need for the science of breeding; but by the continual selection of only the most superior animals for breeding purposes the defects of a species gradually disappear, and the good qualities are alone transmitted. As, however, animals that are used as food for man are to some extent in an abnormal condition, the points which may be excellencies in that state, would not have been such in the original condition of the animal. We find, therefore, that the improved breeds of oxen and sheep exhibit some tendency to revert to their original condition, and it is only by close attention to the diet, breeding, and general management of these animals that this tendency can be successfully resisted. Sometimes, however, an animal of even the best breed will "return to nature," or will acquire some undesirable quality; such an animal should be rejected for breeding purposes, for its defects would in all probability be transmitted to its descendants,near or remote. A case, which admirably illustrates this point, is recorded in thePhilosophical Transactionsfor 1813, and it is sufficiently interesting to be mentioned here:—
Seth Wright, who possessed a small farm on the Charles River, about sixteen miles from Boston, had a small flock, consisting of fifteen ewes and one ram. One of these ewes, in 1791, produced a singular-shaped male lamb. Wright was advised to kill his former ram and keep this new one in place of it; the consequence was, the formation of a new breed of sheep, which gradually spread over a considerable part of New England, but the introduction of the Merino has nearly destroyed them again. This new variety was called the Otter, or "Ankon" breed. They are remarkable for the shortness of their legs, and the crookedness of their forelegs, like an elbow. They are much more feeble and much smaller than the common sheep, and less able to break over low fences; and this was the reason of their being continued and propagated.
Here we have an instance of an animal propagating a defect through a great number of descendants, though it had not acquired it from its own ancestors. It is, however, probable that occasionally a male descendant of this short-legged ram possessed considerably longer organs of locomotion than the founder of his breed; and, consequently, if selected for breeding purposes might become the founder of a long-legged variety, in which, however, a couple of pairs of short-legs would occasionally present themselves. I have a notion that the higher animals are in the scale of being, the greater is their tendency to transmit their acquired good or bad habits to their posterity. Dogs are, perhaps, the most intelligent of the inferior animals, and it is well known that they transmit to their offspring their acquired as well as their natural habits. I doubt very much that those most stupid of creatures, guinea-pigs, possess this property in any sensible degree; or, indeed, that like the canine tribe, they can be readily made to acquire artificial peculiarities: but there once flourished a "learned pig," and it would be worth inquiring whether or not its descendants, like the descendants of the trained setter, and pointer, were at all benefited by the education of their ancestor. I shallconclude this part of my subject in the words of Professor Tanner: "In all cases where the breed has been carefully preserved pure, great benefit will result from doing so. The character of a breed becomes more and more concentrated and confirmed in a pedigree animal, and this character is rendered more fully hereditary in proportion to the number of generations through which it has been transmitted. By the aid of pedigree, purity of blood may be insured, and a systematic plan adopted by which we can perpetuate distinct families, and thereby obtain a change of blood without its being a cross. It is evident that any one adopting a systematic arrangement will be able to do this more effectually than another without this aid. This is the more important when the number of families is small, as is the case with Devons and Herefords, especially the former. The individual animals from which the Devons are descended are very limited in number, and in a few hands; but, with some honourable exceptions, little attention is given to this point. The importance is rendered evident by the decreasing size of the breed, the number of barren heifers, and the increased delicacy of constitution shown in the stock of many breeders of that district who are not particular in this respect. The contrast between such herds, and those in which more care and judgment are exercised, renders the advantages of attention to pedigree very evident; for here the strength of constitution is retained, together with many of the advantages of this valuable breed."
The nature of the animal determines, as I have already stated, the proportion of its food carried off in its increase; but this point is also greatly influenced by itsvariety, orbreed. Certain breeds which have for a long period been kept on bulky food, and obliged to roam in quest of it, appear to have acquired a normal tendency toleanness. No doubt, if they were supplied with highly nutritious food for many successive generations, these breeds might eventually exhibit as great a tendency to fatten as they now do to remain in a lean condition. As it is, the horned cattle of Kerry, Wales, and some other regions, rarely become fat, no matter how abundantly they may be supplied with fattening food. On the other hand, the Herefords, but more especially the Shorthorns, exhibit a natural disposition to obesity, and such animals alone should be stall-fed. It is noteworthy that animals which are naturally disposed to yield abundance of milk are often the best adapted for fattening; but it would appear that the continuous use of highly fattening food, and the observance of the various other conditions in theforcingsystem, diminish the activity of the lacteal secretion, and increase the tendency to fatness in the races of the bovine tribe. The Shorthorns were at one time famous for their milking capabilities, but latterly their galactophoric reputation has greatly declined. Still I am disposed to believe, that if some of those animals were placed under conditions favorable to the improvement of dairy stock, herds of Shorthorn milch cows could be obtained which would vie in their own line with the famous fat-disposed oxen of the same breed.
In sheep the tendency to early maturity and to fatten is greatly influenced by the breed. The Leicester, even when kept on inferior pasture, fattens so rapidly that in eighteen months it is fit for the butcher; whilst the Merino, though supplied with excellent herbage, must be preserved for nearly four years before it is ready for the shambles. The crossing of good herds has resulted in the development of numerous varieties, all remarkable for their aptitude to fatten and to arrive early at maturity. The Leicester—itself supposed to be a cross—has greatly improved the Lincoln, and the Hampshire and Southdown have produced an excellent cross. Ofcourse, each breed and cross has its admirers; indeed, the differences of opinion which prevail in relation to the relative merits of the Lincoln and the Leicester—the Southdown and the Shropshiredown—the Dorset and the Somerset—occasionally culminate into newspaper controversies of an exceedingly ascerb character. There is no doubt but that particular breeds of sheep thrive in localities and under conditions which are inimical to other varieties; but still it is equally evident that,cæteris paribus, one kind of sheep will store up in its increase a larger proportion of its food than another kind, and will arrive earlier at maturity. It is the knowledge of this fact which has led to the great estimation in which are held some half-dozen out of the numerous breeds and cross-breeds of that animal. In 1861 an interesting experiment was made by the Parlington Farmers' Club with the object of testing the relative merits of several varieties of sheep. The results are shown in the tables:—
These results, taken with the customarygrain of salt, tell well for the improved Lincoln; they also clearly show the aptitude to fatten, without much loss in offal, of the Leicester;17and they commend to the lover of good mutton the Shropshire and South-Downs.
In the sixteenth volume of the Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, Mr. Lawes gives some valuable information relative to the comparative fattening qualities of different breeds of sheep. The following table, on this author's authority, shows the average food consumed in producing 100 lbs. increase in live weight:—
Some breeds are profitably kept in certain localities, where other kinds would not pay so well: for example, the Devons, according to Mr. Smith, are better adapted than larger breeds for "converting the produce of cold and hilly pastures into meat." It is remarkable that nearly all the best existing breeds of oxen and sheep are crosses. Major Rudd states that the dam of Hubback, the famous founder of pure improved Shorthorns, owed her propensity to fatten to an admixture of Kyloe blood, and also that the sire of Hubback had a stain of Alderney, or Normandy blood. Although the Rudd account of the ancestry of Hubback is not accepted by all the historians of this splendid breed of cattle, there is no doubt but that the breed owes its origin as much to judicious crossing as to careful selection of sires and dams. It must not, however, be imagined that there are no good pure races of stock. There is a perfectly pure, but now scarce, tribe of Kerry oxen, admirably adapted to poor uplands. The excellent Southdown sheep, though in every respect immensely superior to their ancestors in the last century, have not attained to their present superior state by crossing. The high value placed by breeders upon good sires and dams in the approved breeds of stock is shown by the large sums which they frequently realise at sales, or when the former are let out for service. Bakewell received in one season for the use of a ram 400 guineas each from two breeders, and they did not retain the animal during the whole season. Several hundred guineas have lately been more than once paid for a celebrated tup. Colonel Towneley's Shorthorn bull, Master Butterfly, was, not long since, disposed of to anAustralian buyer for £1,260. At the sale of Mr. Bates's stock in 1850, a stock of Shorthorns, including calves, brought on the average £116 5s. per head. At the Earl Ducie's sale in 1852, a three year old cow—Duchess—realised 700 guineas.
The color of an animal is, to some extent, a criterion of the purity of its breed. Roan is a favourite hue with the breeders of Shorthorns. There have been celebrated sires and dams of that breed perfectly white; but that color, or rather absence of color, is now somewhat unpopular, partly from the idea that it is a sign of weakness of constitution—a notion for which there appears to me to be no foundation in fact. The slightest spot of black, or even a very dark shade, is regarded to be a blemish of the most serious kind when observed on the pelt of a Shorthorn. The Herefords are partly white, partly red; the Devon possesses in general a deep red hue; the Suffolks are usually of a dun or faint reddish tint; the Ayrshires are commonly spotted white and red; and the Kerrys are seen in every shade between a jet black and a deep red. Uniformity in color would be most desirable in the case of each variety, and this object could easily be attained if breeders devoted some attention to it.
The Form of Animals.—The functions of an animal are arranged by Bichat, an eminent physiologist, into two classes—those relating to its nutrition, and those exhibited by its muscular and mental systems. The first class of functions comprise thevegetative, or organic life of the animal, and the second class constitute itsrelativelife. Adopting this arrangement, we may say, then, that those animals in which the vegetative life is far more energetic than the relative life are best suited for the purposes of the feeder. In tigers, wolves, and dogs the relative life predominates over the vegetative; the muscles are almost constantly in a high degree of tension, and the processes of nutrition are in constant requisition to supply the waste of muscle. On theother hand, in oxen, sheep, and pigs, at least when in a state of domesticity, the muscles are not highly developed; they do not largely tax the vegetative processes, and, consequently, the substances elaborated under the influence of the vegetative life rapidly increase. The form of an animal is therefore mainly determined by the activity of its relative life. In a greyhound, the nervous power of which is highly developed, the muscles are large and well-knit, the stomach, intended for the reception of concentrated nutriment only, is small, and the lungs are exceedingly capacious. In such an animal the arrangements for the rapid expenditure of nervous power must be perfect. It is not merely necessary that its muscles should be large and powerful, its lungs must also admit of deep inspirations of oxygen, whereby the motive power wielded by these muscles may be rapidly generated. Now, an animal exactly opposite in organisation to the greyhound would, according to theory, be just the kind to select for the production of meat. The greyhound and the horse expend all their food in the production of motive power; the ox and the sheep, being endowed with but a feeble muscular organisation, use a smaller proportion of their food for carrying on the functions of their relative life, consequently, the weight of their bodies is augmented by the surplus nutriment. It is clear, then, that an animal of a lymphatic temperament, an indolent disposition, a low degree of nervous power, and a tendency to rapid growth, is thebeau idealof a "meat-manufacturing machine." Now, as the larger the lungs of an animal are, the greater is its capacity for "burning," or consuming its tissues, one might suppose that small lungs would be adesideratumin an ox, or other animal destined for the shambles. This appears to be Liebig's opinion, for in one of his books he states that "a narrow chest (small lungs) is considered by experienced agriculturists a sure sign, in pigs, for example, of easy fattening; and the same remark applies to cows, in reference to the produce of milk—that is, of butter." On this subject Professor Tanner makes the following remarks,in his excellent Essay on Breeding and Rearing Cattle:18—"In our high-bred animals we find a small liver and a small lung, accompanied with a gentle and peaceful disposition. Now, these conditions, which are so desirable for producing fat, are equally favorable for yielding butter. The diminished organs economise the consumption of the carbonaceous matters in the blood, hence, more remains for conversion into fat, but equally prepared for yielding cream, if the tendency of the animal is equally favorable to the same." One would imagine, from the foregoing passage, that Mr. Tanner and Baron Liebig coincided in believing small lungs necessary to rapid fattening; but in another part of his essay, Tanner thus describes one of the points indicative of a tendency to fatten early:—"The chest should be bold and prominent, wide and deep, furnished with a deep but not coarse dewlap." On comparing the two passages which I have quoted from Tanner's essay, a contradiction is apparent. Mr. Bowly, Major Rudd, and other eminent breeders and feeders, appear to regard a capacious chest as the best sign of a fattening property which an animal could show. Lawes and Gilbert have recorded the weights of the viscera of a number of animals which, though supplied with equal quantities of the same kind of food, attained to different degrees of fatness. On carefully scrutinising these records, I failed to perceive any constant relation between the weight of their lungs and their tendency to fatten rapidly. Some animals with large lungs converted a larger proportion of their food into meat than others with smaller respiratory organs, andvice versâ. In a state of nature, there is no doubt but that the lungs of the ox and of the sheep are moderately large; and it is evident that in their case, as well as in that of man, over-feeding and confinement tend to diminish their muscular energy, and, of course, to decrease the capacity of the lungs. That such a practice does not tend to the improvementof the health of an animal is perfectly evident, but then the perfect ox of nature is very different from the perfect ox of man. The latter is a wide departure from the original type of its species: any marked development of its nervous system is undesirable; and it is valuable in proportion as its purely vegetative functions are most strongly manifested. A young bullock, therefore, of this kind would, no doubt, be the most economical kind to rear, provided that it was perfectly healthy, and capable of assimilating the liberal amount of food supplied to it. But it rarely happens that a young animal with a weakly chest turns out other than a scrofulous or otherwise diseased adult. On the whole, then, I am disposed to believe that whilst naturally small-lunged species may be more prone to fatten than large-chested ones, it is not the case that small-chested individuals fatten more rapidly than larger lunged individuals of the same kind.
The conditions under which oxen, sheep, and pigs have been so long maintained in civilised countries, must have diminished the capacity of their chests in relation to other parts of their bodies; and it may be fairly doubted if any good could result by reducing to still smaller dimensions those most important organs. Probably the lungs and hearts of the improved breeds of stock are already too small, and that it is only the individuals which are least affected in this respect that answer to Mr. Bowly's description of a fat-disposed beast. Whether or not small lungs are desirable in a bullock or milch cow, it is certain that a ram or a bull should be possessed of a capacious chest, for otherwise he will have but little vigour, and will be likely to produce a weakly offspring. A sire should be a perfectly developed animal in every respect—sound lungs and heart, and not over fat. It is sufficient that it belongs to a good fattening breed; but to produce offspring with a tendency to fatness and early maturity, it is not necessary that the sire should himself be obese. It is to be regretted that so many sires of the Shorthorns and other improved varieties should be used for breeding purposes,when their hearts and lungs have become, by over-feeding the animals, unfitted for the proper discharge of their function. The progeny of such sires mustnaturallyinherit theacquired taintof their diseased progenitors, and prove weakly and unhealthy animals.
With respect to the general outline structure of a bull, he should have a small, well-set head, rounded ribs, straight legs, small bones, and sound internal organs. The following are considered to be the best points in a Shorthorn bull:—A short and moderately small head, with tapering muzzle and broad forehead, furnished with short, white, curved, graceful looking horns; bright, yet mild, large eyes, placed in prominent orbits; dilated nostrils, and flesh-colored nose, and long, thin ears. The neck should be broad, deep, and muscular, sloping in a graceful line from the shoulder to the head. The chest should be wide, deep, projecting, but level in front. The shoulders should be oblique, the blades well set in towards the ribs. The forelegs should be stout, muscular above the knee, and slender below it; the hind legs should be slender to the hock, and from thence increase in thickness to the buttocks, which should be well developed. The carcass should be well rounded at each side, but level on the back and on the belly. There should be no hollows between the shoulder and the ribs, the line from the highest part of the shoulder to the insertion of the tail should be a perfect level. The flank should be full, the loins broad, and the tail finely formed and only partially covered with hair. The skin is a prime point: it must be covered with hair of a roan, or otherfashionablecolor, and communicate to the hand of the experienced feeler, a peculiar sensation, which it is impossible to describe. With regard to this point, I cannot do better than quote the words of an experienced "handler":—
"A nice or good judge of cattle or sheep, with a slight touch of the fingers upon the fatting points of the animal—viz., the hips, rump, ribs, flanks, breast, twist, shoulder score, &c. will know immediately whether it will make fat or not, and inwhich part it will be the fattest. I have often wished to convey in language that idea or sensation we acquire by the touch or feel of our fingers, which enables us to form a judgment when we are handling an animal intended to be fatted, but I have as often found myself unequal to that wish. It is very easy to know where an animal is fattest which is already made fat, because we can evidently feel a substance or quantity of fat—all those parts which are denominated the fatting points; but the difficulty is to explain how we know or distinguish animals, in a lean state, which will make fat and which will not—or rather, which will make fat in such points or parts, and not in others—which a person of judgment (in practice) can tell, as it were, instantaneously. I sayin practice, because I believe that the best judgesout of practiceare not able to judge with precision—at least, I am not. We say this beasttouchesnicely upon its ribs, hips, &c., &c., because we find a mellow, pleasant feel on those parts; but we do not say soft, because there are some of this same sort of animals which have a soft, loose handle, of which we do not approve, because, though soft and loose, have not the mellow feel above mentioned. For though they both handle soft and loose, yet we know that the one will make fat and the other will not; and in this lies the difficulty of the explanation. We clearly find a particular kindliness or pleasantness in the feel of the one much superior to the other, by which we immediately conclude that this will make fat, and the other not so fat; and in this a person of judgment, andin practice, is very seldom mistaken."
In many respects the good points in a Shorthorn cow resemble those in the male of that breed, but in others there is considerable difference. As I have described in prose the excellencies which a bull should possess, I will now give a poetical summary of the good points of a cow of that breed, extracted from theJournal of Agriculture, and composed evidently by an excellent breeder and poet, Mr. Carr:—