It has been said somewhere that a breed is doomed when the society caters more for the financial interests of its members than for the breed itself. The statement is worth serious consideration, especially in quarters where it is most ignored.

Originally, as far as I’m aware, the breed society was formed chiefly for the registration of pedigrees, but the objects of all of our societies are explicitly or implicitly taken tally include the encouragement of the breed and its continued improvements. All pay attention to propaganda, but as I have previously mentioned, few pay as much attention to the education of their members or the qualifications of new members.  None employ advisory scientists, none have officials competent to visit the herds of members or advise them in the art and science of stock breeding. Breed society journals, on the whole, are devoted to accounts of sales, reports from breeders, compliments from abroad, descriptions of shows, and every form of advertisement—with occasional technical articles and critical correspondence. Usually, the societies have large, often unwieldy councils whose divergent views the secretary does his best to represent. And as I have indicated, election to such councils does not depend only on personal ability, knowledge or experience in practical breeding, still less on contact with the farmer’s point of view.

I do not suggest that these councils lack competent and skilled breeders—quite obviously, they include many such men—but they also include many who have little practical experience or scientific knowledge. Reading through the list of names of members of councils of various breeds, one cannot help being struck by the virtual absence of scientists. I have no idea of the average age, but I cannot imagine that anyone would be struck by the extreme youth of any such body. As things are, members of council are elected by members from among members, and in only one society does it appear customary to co-opt some not elected.

It will be clear, that to expect progressive leadership from councils of this would be somewhat optimistic, especially among breeds which have not yet agreed standards. Now the council, in effect, governs the society. The annual meeting often consists of a mutual-admiration-society-cum-business-meeting, in which the ordinary member is small fry indeed. Nor has he much redress, if he objects to the policy of his society, for he cannot resign from it without great financial sacrifice. The breed society has the most tenacious of all monopolies, that of registration; it will accept entries only from its members, and to resign membership means the loss of pedigree value of every animal born in one’s herd subsequent to registration. In short, on cannot resign without selling one’s herd. What can the breeder do, who wishes to see his breed brought into line with real needs and real problems? What can he do if he wishes, say, to breed out horns while retaining his herd in the breed herd-book in spite of the original outcross required.
Here, then, are the suggestions which I would offer for the reorientation of breed societies towards greater efficiency of their breeds and the extension of their services to their members:
           

Membership.

The number of new members elected each year is no advertisement for the breed, unless they are breeder members, not merely owner members. I should like to see membership confined to those who will actually direct the breeding policy of the herd; those who wish to remain owners could be honorary members, with their agents active members. Such an arrangement need not be financially unprofitable. Entry fee, moreover, might be increased, except from those who are grading up non-pedigree herds.

Evidence might be required from new breeders as to their intentions in constructive breeding and their previous experience with livestock. It is indeed questionable whether it is in the interest of any breed, that those who have no experience should begin by founding a pedigree herd. At all events, membership of a breed society should, I submit, be regarded as a privilege and a responsibility, requiring more than money payments from members. On the other hand, the society could—and I think should—be able to help its members more positively than is usual in England today; should help them, and especially the less experienced, to attain their ends with less setbacks and keep them informed of experimental work.
           
Councils.

If the business of breed societies continues to be conducted by their councils and committees, elected by members, more provision should be made for voicing the views of the more progressive elements, and especially of milk or beef producers—the breeders customers. Show success should be less important a qualification for admission to councils than first hand practical experience of constructive breeding. The council should, I am convinced, be empowered to co-opt advisors on technical questions—a geneticist, a nutritionist (having expert knowledge of human and animal nutrition) and a physiologist appointed in an advisory capacity would be an asset to any breed society, while a master butcher could help the dual purpose breed councils. Committees could profitably be formed for other issues than those of propaganda, finance, discipline, etc., to advise the council on technical matters, and not least, of the experience of breeders in other countries, as well as of other breeds.; to advise the council on technical matters, and not least, of the experience of breeders in other countries, as well as of other breeds.

Advisory work.

It should be possible for the breeder to obtain advice from his society on his breeding policy, both in theory and practice. If breeders are to make the necessary progress towards breeding reliable sires of efficient cattle, and to adopt close breeding, many of them are likely to need a considerable amount of advice. In addition to a geneticist it would be a great help if field officers were appointed, men experienced in the particular breed, and fully conversant with the strains within it, able to visit and advise on the individual breeder’s herd. There are many breeders who stand in no need of advice, but there are also many, especially newcomers, who would greatly profit by it, and if the improvement which we desire is to take place on a die scale, some practical technical assistance should, I am sure, be available.
           
Breed Standards.

Each society has, or should have, a standard or standards for its particular breed. As regards conformation, all have official descriptions, and some, definite scales of points. Some of these descriptions and points need revision.  I should like to see the points clearly divided into utility and breed points; those which are concerned with essential conformation and those which are admitted trademarks. Such a distinction would no doubt involve argument, but would not, I dare to think, be impossible of satisfactory demarcation for the majority of breeds.

The chief difficulty would arise where there is much difference of opinion among breeders as to the type of animal at which they aim. Here, it seems to me, no progress will be made until separate sections within the breed are admitted. I can see no reason why shorthorn breeders—whose difficulties are outstanding in this respect—should not frankly divider their breed into several distinct strains, each breeder making up his mind as to the type he will breed, and describing himself as a breeder of this or that strain. If something of this sort is not done, we shall continue to have the breed ruined by heterozygosity. We have already a distinct pure beef type, suited to the Argentine demand; we might have a 75% beef type, a 50-50 type for the North Country, and a 75% dairy type suited to most lowland farms in addition to a pure dairy type if required. Each type might have a somewhat different weighted scale of points as regards conformation, and a different standard of performance for milk production.

Personally, I used to deplore our multiplicity of breeds, but I have become increasingly convinced that a number of different types are essential for different circumstances; the danger lies, not in the number, but in their being mixed up together. The farmer ought to be able to find out exactly which herds are breeding the type of animal he requires, and breeding it consistently.

Registers of merit for sires.

Any scheme of real value must take into consideration all of the daughters of the sire, not a few hand picked ones, and my preference would be for a numerical system, in which ‘R.M. 10/12 would refer to a sire having ten qualified daughters out of a possible twelve which had completed one or more lactations. Such a system—and the breed societies, or some of them, are now considering these problems—would discriminate against the uncertain getter. But no register of merit or sire index is likely to be completely satisfactory, since it is impossible to take into consideration, either the cost of production, the environmental differences between the herds and seasons, the hereditary and environmental differences between dams and daughters. For these reasons, many authorities consider that the simplest index—that of all daughters, without relation to dams—is as good, if not better, than the more elaborate ones, such as the Mount Hope index. For my part, I want a sire whose daughters show comparatively little variation, rather than one some of whose daughters are heavy milkers and some poor milkers, but this question is highly complicated. If we can show up the percentages of failures in a sire’s get by a good register of merit scheme we shall make real progress.

Information.

I very much hope that after the war our breed societies will be able to offer their members a more comprehensive information service. One of the most obvious lacunae, which seems to apply to all breeds, is some convenient means of finding out all the progeny of a given sire. If entries in each volume were indexed under their sires it would be a simple matter to look back a few volumes in order to make a complete list. From this information, it would then be easy to check up on the performance of the progeny.

….Nevertheless, the customer is, I think, entitled to some guidance, if he takes the time to outline his requirements, and there is such a wide variety of types bred in different herds that he is likely to be confused if left to himself. He would, moreover, be given a considerable choice of likely herds, and even if they failed to supply his requirements, they would be worth a visit. Such assistance presupposes contact between the society’s officials and breeders herds—a contact which would require increased staff in order to relieve already overburdened secretaries. This, in turn, would require financing, but if the services to breeders were extended in this and other ways, it would be only logical to increase entry fees, subscriptions and so forth, and reduce prize money donations. At the moment, I believe we pay to little and get too little in return, considering what opportunities a breed society might b e given.

Another development to which I should like to look forward would be the institution of breeders’ conferences, which might be held one or more times a year. Breeding is not a mystery, and the time has passed, if it ever existed, when breeders were afraid to let others into their ‘secrets’. Our difficulty is not to restrict supply, or to make a corner on this or that strain; it is to meet the growing demand everywhere. The better stock we breed, the more demand will increase. If breeders could meet together to discuss the problems which affect them, I am convinced that we should all benefit immensely from   each other’s experiences.

Sales and shows.

A breed society has the chance to put forward a really progressive program in relation to the sales, usually accompanied by shows, which it sponsors. As far as I am aware, all societies run their shows on the antiquated and admittedly inadequate basis of inspection only, even among single purpose dairy breeds. ….. Surely the breed societies should give a positive lead to their members by disregarding non-essentials and insisting upon the yardstick of efficiency. Most of them stress economic value in theory, but in practice their attitude is usually negative if not reactionary.

If they went back to Bakewell, all might be well, since no breeder has ever been more concerned with efficiency or more practical in his efforts to obtain it. … The breed societies tend to forget ‘the great fact that in their day the great achievements of the past were the adventures of the past. Only the adventurous can understand the greatness of the past.’ Today, bold, adventurous leadership is required in stockbreeding as in all other forms of activity. Will the breed societies provide that leadership? Or if not, from whence will it come? The day of public or private enterprise is past.