In-Breeding: What it is and What it Does - A Treatise of the Greatest Value to Breeders of all Kinds of Farm and Fancy Stock

By C. A. House

This volume takes a detailed look at in-breeding animals, exploring what it is, what it can achieve, and common problems related to it. “In-Breeding: What it is and What it Does” contains a wealth of information that will be invaluable to farmers and breeders of farm animals. Contents Include: “A General Survey”, “A Continental Race”, “Horse Breeder Defines In-Breeding”, “Purity of Strain and Stamina”, “In-Breeding Described”, “Out-Crossing and In-Crossing”, “How to In-Breed”, “Strain: What is it?”, “Like Produces Like”, “What In-Breeding Has Done for Horses, Cattle and Sheep”, “In-Breeding Dogs”, etc. Many vintage books such as this are increasingly scarce and expensive. It is with this in mind that we are republishing this volume now in an affordable, modern, high-quality edition complete with a specially-commissioned new introduction on farming.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Read Books Ltd.
• Release date: Jan 10, 2013
• ISBN: 9781447486428

Book preview

XIV.—CONCLUSION

CHAPTER I.

A GENERAL SURVEY.

In-breeding has always held a strange fascination for myself, even as, I think, it must for every breeder of prize stock who looks below the surface. Superficiality may carry a man a long way, but it is certain to let him down badly at some time or the other; therefore, in dealing with this subject of in-breeding, one must not do as many do, view it simply as a system which enforces the mating together of birds and animals not necessarily close relations, yet all members oi the same family.

In-breeding is something far more than this. It makes little demand upon a man’s intelligence simply to mate together close relations, but to carry out a properly defined system of in-breeding, as I understand the subject, will cause him to use his intellectual powers to the fullest extent possible.

A well-known American fancier has said that in-breeding is a system that keeps the blood of one individual in all the descendants as much as possible, and may necessitate the breeding of mother and son. My own view is very similar. In-breeding is a system which ensures that every unit in a stud is more or less related to every other unit in that same stud; not necessarily close relations, but all of the same blood line.

In-breeding is practised to secure uniformity of essential features and characters such as type, colour, feather, coat, etc. The result of constant and careful selection of individuals upon these lines is to concentrate and stamp upon the family or strain those qualities which are most highly appreciated by judges and exhibitors.

It is generally known that in-breeding is a science to which I have devoted a considerable amount of attention. My own personal knowledge and experience have been freely drawn upon in what I have written, and I shall supplement this by facts and figures from the experiences of other men, drawn from all ranks of the Fancy, who have proved themselves successful exponents of this great science. In in-breeding, as in most things, there is a why and a wherefore, and I shall endeavour to show my readers why, if they would be known as successful breeders of live stock, men worthy of having their names writ on the highest scroll of Fancy fame, they must practise in-breeding.

In was in 1874 that in-breeding first attracted attention amongst breeders of the smaller kinds of live stock, and interest in that subject was then aroused by a series of articles in the Fanciers’ Gazette, dealing with it in a plain and practical manner, from the pen of the late Lewis Wright, the well-known authority on poultry breeding. Interest was aroused by these articles of Lewis Wright, but they did not have the influence their merit deserved.

At that time people thought in-breeding much too erudite a subject to be considered in connection with the smaller end of the Fancy. Others never troubled to think about the matter at all; they were content to go on as they had been going, following the slipshod methods of those who had gone before them. They were content, as Englishmen so often are, to muddle on.

I have been often asked my opinion on this subject by fanciers who have not been content to stay in the ordinary ruck, men who could and would think out difficult problems for themselves. These thinking fanciers, I am pleased to say, have much increased of late years, and to-day there is not so much haphazard breeding of live stock as there used to be.

HAPHAZARD METHODS

I have spoken of thinking fanciers, because I find many fanciers are not thinkers. They muddle on in a haphazard kind of way, and meet with a certain amount of success. Fortune favours them, and for a time they are known as successful followers of the Fancy in which they are engaged. If, however, you ask them for $he pedigree of any particular bird or animal, they cannot give it to you. They have kept no record of their matings, and thus axe quite at sea when asked to give pedigrees. They have a certain knowledge of their pairings, due to the retentive power of their memory, and thus far they can give the information you ask. Such men go on for a time, but, by and by, they come a cropper. Their successes suddenly cease, and they cannot breed a good specimen at any price. Why? Simply because they have been breeding on happy-go-lucky lines, as opposed to practical and scientific modes of procedure.

It is a most remarkable thing, but many of our English fanciers are opposed to in-breeding. Yet, if you ask them why, they can give you no sound or practical reasons. They are guided, in some measure, by the code which governs the family relationship of civilised nations, and by what other fanciers tell them, I am convinced that many of our successful breeders of dogs, poultry, pigeons, canaries, rabbits and other small stock have long practised the art of in-breeding, but selfishly have kept the fact to themselves, fearful lest others should share the successes which have attended their efforts. On the other hand, I must give credit to those fanciers who believe in in-breeding, and believing, practise it, also do not hesitate to state their belief.

Many there are who state they are opposed to in-breeding, but I have generally found that their opposition comes from ignorance of what in-breeding really means. They lack knowledge of the principles adopted, also of the means whereby success has been achieved by those who have become famous the world over by in-breeding to the most famous animals that have come under their care.

The practice of in-breeding is not new, nor are the beneficial results gained from it so much in doubt that the merits or demerits of the system should now prove so contentious, which is a fact difficult to understand.

Years ago the leading scientific authorities were against in-breeding. It is not so to-day; many are in favour of in-breeding in order to attain outstanding success in animal breeding, but they qualify their views by laying great stress on the necessity for rigorous selection. In fact, the closer the in-breeding, the more rigorous must selection be. This I have always maintained.

It needs to be clearly understood that the mating of near relations does not of itself create unsoundness in a strain. It simply brings to light defects that have been lying hidden. In other words, where foundation stock is sound, a family will prosper under in-breeding. The reverse, however, holds good should the family carry latent characters, which are natural defects or weakness of the organism.

In-breeding, carefully carried out, shows that in the early generations a lot of unsoundness comes to light, such as loss of size, lack of vigour, partial or total sterility, susceptibility to disease, etc., but if one perseveres, and sifts the wheat from the chaff, one finally arrives at stability, and has animals uniform in character and free from inherent defects.

CHAPTER II.

A CONTINENTAL RACE-HORSE BREEDER DEFINES IN-BREEDING.

The late M. Gigot, of Brussels, a famous journalist and breeder of race-horses and homing pigeons, and a personal friend of mine, made a long study of the question, and his study was successful in its results. I therefore cannot do better than give his opinion. He says: I am a firm believer in consanguinity, having proved its reliability. I am a convinced consanguinist. The fanciers who bother themselves so little with discoveries of science for the most part have not the least idea what can be done in cultivating breeding by consanguinity. They would practise morbid consanguinity equally as well as healthy consanguinity, and would not fail when noting some inevitable disastrous results to accuse our method.

As an illustration of the morbid consanguinity mentioned by M. Gigot, one may take the fanciers who, without any thought as to suitability from the standpoint of health and vigour, mate together close relations, and style that in-breeding. Such in-breeding does far more harm than good.

"One amateur, in practising alliances between relations, will be successful from the beginning, because the race and the conditions of life lend themselves easily, whilst another, applying the same laws to another variety, would require two or three times longer in order to succeed. Bakewell, one of the first breeders in the world, transformed from top to bottom by consanguinity the principal races of domestic animals in England. He stood the fire of bitter criticism,

Reviews for In-Breeding

[Dogo Guatemalteco · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Excellent work. Helps discourage the perpetuation of myths surrounding inbreeding.