Breeding Without Mendelism: Theory and Practice of Dairy Cattle Breeding in the Netherlands 1900–1950

Abstract

Abstract. In the 1940s and 1950s, Dutch scientists became increasingly critical of the practices of commercial dairy cattle breeders. Milk yields had hardly increased for decades, and the scientists believed this to be due to the fact that breeders still judged the hereditary potential of their animals on the basis of outward characteristics. An objective verdict on the qualities of breeding stock could only be obtained by progeny testing, the scientists contended: the best animals were those that produced the most productive offspring.Some scientists had been making this claim since the beginning of the twentieth century. Why was it that their advice was apparently not heeded by breeders for so long? And what were the methods and beliefs that guided their practices? In this paper I intend to answer these questions by analysing the practical realities of dairy farming and stock breeding in The Netherlands between 1900 and 1950. Breeders continued to employ traditional breeding methods that had proven their effectiveness since the late eighteenth century. Their methods consisted in inbreeding -breeding in 'bloodlines,' as they called it -and selection on the basis of pedigree, conformation and milk recording data. Their aims were 'purity' and 'uniformity' of type. Progeny testing was not practiced due to practical difficulties.Before World War II, scientists acknowledged that genetic theory was of little practical use to breeders of livestock. Still, hereditary theory was considered to be helpful to assess the value of the breeders' methods. For instance, striving for purity was deemed to be consistent with Mendelian theory. Yet the term purity had different connotations for scientists and practical workers. For the former, it referred to homozygosity; for the latter, it rather buttressed the constancy of a distinct commercial 'brand. ' Until the 1940s, practical breeders and most scientists were agreed that selecting animals purely for production was ill-advised. Cows of the extreme dairy type were believed to be prone to bovine tuberculosis. This conviction was at the basis of the development of 'the modern Friesian,' a rather robust type of dairy cow that was also valued for its aesthetically pleasing conformation and that became a commercial success.Journal of the History of Biology (2008) 41:637-676 Ó Springer 2008 DOI 10.1007 Contrary to the scientists' claims, it was not only for commercial reasons that breeders were reluctant to give up their modern Friesians after World War II, when the introduction of artificial insemination opened up the possibility of breeding more productive types by means of progeny testing. The political economy of breeding did indeed require breeders to protect their breed as a recognisable brand. Yet the moral economy of breeding must also be taken into account: the modern Friesian was also a product of widely shared normative standards of good and responsible farming.

Bovine tuberculosis: the genetic basis of host susceptibility

“…In the early years of the twentieth century, efforts were already underway to increase resistance to TB by breeding (Waddington 2004). Indeed, Dutch cattle breeders in the 1940s, convinced that artificial selection for production traits alone was ill-advised, developed the modern Friesian breed as a more robust dairy cow since anecdotal evidence suggested older lineages were more susceptible to disease (Theunissen 2008). …”

Collective organisation of knowledge in the early phase of the Dutch-Friesian dairy industry (c. 1880-1914)

“…This could be achieved by breeding the cows with less regard for personal gut feelings and the cows' appearance, and more focus on their productivity (Theunissen, 2008). However, a specific kind of knowledge was needed for the determination of fat percentages, and the methods for doing so had been developed during the mid-1850s but were complicated and expensive (Atkins, 2010: 75-81).…”

Things of Darkness: Genetics, Melanins and the Regime of Salazar (1936-1952)

“…The paradoxical answer is that in the 1940s this chaos was not all bad news for a geneticist. During the 19th century, breeders' associations in countries such as the UK, Germany or Holland had been responsible for unforeseeable diseases, such as bovine tuberculosis in cows (Theunissen, , p. 647). They had promoted selective breeding with the aim of achieving the ‘constancy of a distinct commercial brand’ of livestock (Theunissen, , p. 666).…”

“…During the 19th century, breeders' associations in countries such as the UK, Germany or Holland had been responsible for unforeseeable diseases, such as bovine tuberculosis in cows (Theunissen, , p. 647). They had promoted selective breeding with the aim of achieving the ‘constancy of a distinct commercial brand’ of livestock (Theunissen, , p. 666). By the start of the 20th century, these methodologies were being vehemently criticized by geneticists and only by the 1940s had geneticists and breeders reached an understanding and once again started to cooperate (Theunissen, , p. 637).…”