HEREFORD AND SHORTHORNS COMPARED.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2244, 7 May 1881, Page 3

HEREFORD AND SHORTHORNS COMPARED.

Breeders of shorthorn cattle may not safely shut their eyes against the fact that the Herefords have made tremendous strides in public favor within the past five years, and that such of our ranchmen on the Western plains as have tried them almost unanimously give them the preference over shorthorns, because as they express it, they are “ better wrestlers” —that is, they are better adapted to the conditions under which they are compelled to exist on these plains than the shorthorns. There are distinctive points of difference between the two breeds that are obvious. The Hereford, from his very formation proclaims himself the hardier beast of the two. His big head, thick horns, heavy neck and shoulders, and great depth through the heart, proclaim his vigor and his ability to wrestle with hardships and privation. Hence we are not surprised that he should succeed on the plains where once roamed the American bison, which is possessed of much of the same form. The Hereford is par excellence a grazing beast, both hero and in his native home. On the other hand the shorthorn is more of an artificial creation, an animal that in outline is the very perfeotion of bovine beauty, and which will repay good treatment and generous feeding probably better than any other meat producing breed of cattle in existence. In speaking upon this point not long since with one of the most experienced breeders and feeders of our acquaintance—a man who has done more perhaps than any other man living to bring the Herefords to the front in this country—he expressed himself as follows“ The Hereford breeders claim too much. The Herefords are certainly the best grazing cattle in the world ; but when you come to place them on a farm where they can have good grass with plenty of grain and from storms, they cannot be compared with the shorthorns. In a race under such conditions, with well selected and well-bred shorthorns, the Herefords would be beaten.” Such testimony, coming from a man who has never been accused of partiality for the short horn, is entitled to great weight certainly, in so far as it favors the latter breed. In our opinion, baaed more upon a careful utudy of the experience of others than of onr own, this gentleman hud drawn the lino very nearly where it belongs. Each breed has its place where it is superior to the other. There is room for both, and room for improvement in both. If we could reduce the head, neck, shoulders and horns of the Hereford, and increase the relative weight of his hind quarters, we should have a much handsomer beast and a more profitable carcass in proportion to gross weight; but this probably cannot bo done to any considerable degree without a sacrifice of some of the very qualities that peculiarly adapt him to a life of exposure on the plains. On the other hand, the short horns are unquestionably interior as a breed to the Herefords in the cross—in the heart girth—and improvement in this particular is a point at which breeders may well aim without danger or injury to any of the present good qualities of the breed.—“ National Live Stock journal.”