WOOL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XVII, Issue 1000, 11 June 1862, Page 3

WOOL.

| It will scarcely be questioned that wool is, and is long likely to continue, the most important produce of New Zealand. Nor can there be any doubt that the wool grown in this country is very favourably regarded in Europe. An investment of capital in sheep under ordinary circumstances may be considered a safe and profitable investment. So far all is dear. But what still appears a most important point, and one which is very perplexing to those having no practical knowledge on the subject, is— What description of wool is the most profitable ? Now it may be quite possible for people knowing nothing whatever about sheep, and very little about wool, to estimate the value of argument based on acknowledged facts. Those who have thought on the subject suggested in the foregoing question will have found that it leads to two other questions, viz.:—Which is preferable, long wool or short wool ? —ls it possible to obtain a good breed of sheep by crossing P Before an answer is given to the first of these two questions it will be necessary to make a few preliminary inquiries. It may, however, be as well to clear the way by saying that what follows is intended to apply exclusively to wool; that mutton is not taken into account: it is not by the sale of mutton, but by the exportation of wool, that the wealth of New Zealand will be increased. It may, no doubt, be wise for the farmer living in the vicinity of a good market for mutton to attend rather to the size of the sheep's carcase than to either the quantity or the quality of its wool. But that is not the subject now under consideration.

The first thing to be ascertained is the nature of the pasture on which sheep are to be fed. Speaking generally, large sheep carry long wool, while small sheep carry short wool. For large sheep to thrive, breed freely, and produce a good clip of wool, they must be depastured on land that is tolerably level, fertile, and producing good grasses. To place such sheep on uplands, where they are obliged to travel much in order to obtain their food, would be to ensure their rapid deterioration. Small sheep, on the contrary, thrive quite as well in every hilly country, and in fact maintain their health better than on lower lands and in richer pastures. The nature of the pasture, then, ought to determine the breed of sheep to be kept on it.

Another inquiry is, as to the relative weight of the fleeces of the long and short woolled breeds. Assuming that they are not fed artificially, but each on the pasture most suitable to the breed, there can be little doubt that the former carry the heavier fleeces. But let it be distinctly noted the fleeces of the larger breed, if allowed to deteriorate by being depastured on uplands, will not, after two or at most three generations, be so heavy as those of the smaller breed on the same pasture. A, further consideration is the price of each description of wool. This is a question easily answered by reference to the London Wool Reports. The wool realising the highest price is the fine short wool. It is not improbable that on low rich lands producing the best grasses the difference in the weight of the fleece of the large breed would more than compensate for the higher price of that of the small breed. But regard being had to the actual quality of the natural pastures of New Zealand, and even with some allowance made for their possible future improvement, there can be no reason for supposing that the fleece of the long woolled sheep will be as valuable as that of the fine short one. There are pastures of an intermediate description which may be thought suitable to either breed; in which case it may be more difficult to decide between their respective claims. But even such pastures may deteriorate, in which case the larger breed would suffer, whereas the smaller breed would not. It may be as well to notice a common fallacy connected with this. It is sometimes hastily assumed that a run will carry the same number of large as of small sheep. This is a mistake. Not only does the large sheep require more food than the smaller one to enable it to maintain its condition, but it is notso rough a feeder, not so active in procuring its food, nor will it thrive so well being on a run that is close fed or overstocked. In a country where sheep runs are not of unlimited extent this may be worth noticing, as it is likely that in a given space a much heavier clip of wool may be obtained from the smaller breed. It is frequently asserted that the demand for long wool is increasing, and the supply of short wool is equal to the demand. But the tendency in Europe now is to cultivate long-woolled breeds, the effect of which will be to increase the demand for fine wools. At the Royal Agricultural Society of England, Professor Wilson said: " They (foreigners) also see that whatever fine wool the market requires can be supplied from Australia and New Zealand at a far cheaper rate and far better in quality than any that Saxony, or Silesia, or Moravia can supply." * * * «Well, that at once showed that the foreign powers could not successfully compete in the wool market with England and her colonies; and I believe that the tendency is for the foreigner to give up growing these fine class wools upon small animals, and to substitute for them the large framed sheep carrying more wool at a lower price."

Is it possible to obtain a good breed of sheep by crossing ? This question is suggested by the discussion of the previous one. Some are inclined to ask —-whether it is not possible to obtain a breed of sheep by crossing the two breeds above referred to which shall in a great measure combine the merits of both: There can be but one answer to this question : such a breed cannot be obtained. It may be objected to this that good cross breeds have been established in England, such as the Hampshire and Wiltshire downs. It is well known that those breeds are the result of crossing the old Hampshire and Wiltshire white-faced horned breeds with the Sussex downs. But let it be observed that it was not for the purpose of .obtaining an intermediate breed combining the good qualities of both that this croas was resorted to; but in order to change bad breeds already existing in millions in those two countries, and which could not be got rid of, into a good breed possessing the qualities of that good breed j and that this was ultimately accomplished by the persevering efforts of a majority of the farmers of those two counties after a space of sixty or seventy years, who used none but pure rams, until their flocks were not distinguishable from pure Sussex downs. This is evidently a very different thing from the formation of an intermediate breed. It may be advisable to fortify the opinion here so strongly stated. The ' Economist' (in a very able article on Mr. Spooner's paper on cross-breeding) says" There is probably more misapprehension in agricultural circles on the subject of cross breeding than oh any other branch of practical husbandry. Cross-breeding is merely a plan of producing meat, for cross bred animals are only profitable when bred for' the butcher. They cannot be perpetuated. They are quasi-hybrids, and if used at all for the purpose of breeding they must be coupled with one or other of the pure breeds from which they were produced. A first cross, where both parents are good of their respective kinds, seems to be the most certain mode of breeding for the butcher; and if the matter rested there it would be well. But not a few agriculturists, finding their first crosses prove profitable, suppose they can perpetuate animals of the same character by breeding from'such cross-bred stock. Every attempt of the sort has proved a failure, as a reasonable attention to the main principle of breeding, that ' like will produce like,' would readily, show." Again, " We recommend the following remarks, with which Mr. Spooner concludes his paper, to the attention of

those who resort to cross-breeding with any other view than that of feeding the first produce of that cross :—' Where equal advantages can be attained by keeping a pure breed of sheep, such pure breed should unquestionably be preferred ; and though crossing for the purposes of the butcher may be practised with impunity, and even with advantage; yet no one should do so for the purpose of establishing a new breed, unless he has clear and well defined views of the object he seeks to accomplish, find has duly studied the principles on which it can be carried out, and is determined to bestow for the space of half a lifetime his constant and unremitting attention to the discovery and removal of defects.' And we may add, that there is no instance of any one establishing a new breed which has attained a perfect type."

Where new breeds have been established it has been the result of the co-operation of all' the farmers of a certain district working in one direction ; but after all, what is produced is but a sub-variety of a pure breed gradually more and more approaching to the characteristics of that breed, —not a breed intermediate between two other breeds.

But there is another condition far more essential to anything like success ; it is that in any crossbreeding the female should be of a larger breed than the male. There is no point on which scientific breeders are more unanimous than this. No greater blunder can be committed than that of using a male of a larger breed than the female. The late H. Olive, Esq, surgeon, fully established this fact in a work published on the subject of breeding. It would be easy to give physiological reasons to account for this fact. It may be sufficient to say that the powers of the dam being overtaxed her offspring will necessarily be deficient in symmetry and vigour of constitution. An illustration may be supplied from the fact familiar to all who have lived in countries where mules are in common use, namely, that whereas the produce of a mare is almost universally a valuable animal, the offspring of a she-ass is invariably a worthless brute. To cross, therefore, with any prospect of avoiding absolute and ruinous failure, the rams should be of the smaller breed.

There is another fatal objection to a cross. The chief object to be arrived at by the breeder should be the uniform character of his wool; but a cross will occasion innumerable varieties, and not unfrequently several on the same sheep.

The well-known rule mentioned above that " like will produce like " is the safest guide to all breeders, and cannot be too strictly observed. All violent crosses should be strictly avoided; "unlike" will produce nobody knows what. The improvement of a flock can only be attained with any prospect of success by using rams as nearly as possible resembling the ewes, though they should be the best of their kind. It may be almost needless to add that breeding in-and-in, that is from near affinities, is highly objectionable, and should never under any circumstances whatever be resorted to .—Spectator, June 4.