POULTRY FOR EVERYBODY.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10195, 24 March 1911, Page 6

POULTRY FOR EVERYBODY.

(By ''Cock-o'-the-North.' )

Continuing on the subject of the l standard of excellence, I should like my readers to try and reason j this out for themselves, as far as i possible. I advised readers some weeks back never to accept any statement from anyone (myself included) unless supported by good, clear reasons, and I now emphatically repeat it. The gentlemen who have drawn up the standard are, by their own action, placed in this position: Ist. They should show a wellauthenticated precedent for a few men utterly unauthorised drawing up a code of laws to govern some thousands of other people, or show where a utility article (on exhibition as .such) has been judged on outside show only, or prove that they possess extraordinary ability, and are so

superior to'the remainder of the large body they seek to control that they are in the right in so doing. In regard to "the first, plenty of my readers have been to shows and ■exhibitions where, say, agricultural machinery has been entered, to show its usefulness. Do the judges award the prize to (say) the best painted .machine or the one wit]} the highest polished parts? Or do they award the prize to the machine for its efficiency, strength and economy in labour, and cost? Again, take an exhibit of jams.. Do the judges award the prize to the jam with the most gaudy label or 1 , in the most fancifully, made tins, or do they award it for purity, quality, and economy? Again, let any of my readers' wives enter scones -for competition. Will the judges give them first because they take great care to have their scones pleasing to the eye in outward appearance, or bel cause they have been well mixed and then properly baked, and are composed of wholesome materials in the right proportions? All these are utility articles, and if necessary I could mention hundreds of others. But to what purpose ? They are utility articles, and as such are judged for their utility points alone. And so with utility fowls. They are

just that and nothing else. But, bless you, this will not please Messrs Brown, Rose, Hawke, Kennedy and Shaw. . They must "be pretty, too, or out they go. I could quite- under-

stand that if two birds were equal in utility points the award should go to the one which was the best type of the breed it represented; but to allow an inferior bird to win from a bird of very high merit, whether in egg production, table qualities, or both, simply because it is pretty to look at, is an absurdity I am sorry to see any New Zealand poultryman suggest or , advocate.

' In regard to the second item as above, can any one of the five gentlemen I have referred to show us (New Zealand utility men) any special thing of own creation or invention which, has benefited to any extent the industry they seek ;to control and cramp with: restrictions, or which has made the cost of production less, ,thereby enabling the public to benefit? If so, I have not heard l of it; and if not I should like to be told on what they Base their immense superiority which permits them to say* to the rest of us (virtually) ' 'These are the correct' laws whereby your birds shall be judged; you don't know sufficient to frame any for yourselves, but we are so far above you in knowledge and experience that we will do it for you, and you must obey-" I can dismiss this part by quoting-a. common saying, "Talk is cheap, but it takes money to buy whisky (or perhaps in Masterton I shoxild say ginger beer)." . To the public who read the Age, I ■should say, when you are at a poultry show and see a bird ticketed first and special (or first, second, or third) in a utility class, if you are looking for a bird to produce layers, find out if it is under this 'standard" it has been judged, and, if so, go home and enquire for some neighbour or poultryman ,in your neighbourhood who lias a flock of good layers, and buy from him, and the chances are. you will get a five times better bird than the /first at the show, which has been placed first under this "standard."

Last year the sale of eggs and poultry for table use alone in the United States bf America returned £120,000,000. Just try and fancy this, but had I. K. Felch and those who so strenuously, fought to conserve the useful properties of America's fowls, been beaten, it is almost certain the industry would not have yielded one fifth of these returns.

Let any one purchase a copy of the American standard of perfection, and compare the birds with the ideal of the English standard, and Ido not think he (or she) will require any urging from me as to the correct course to follow to conserve

the utility properties of our birds

To the experienced utility poultry farmer J. do not need to tender any advice on this subject, as he will be able to judge of the probable mischievous effects of this so-called standard in utility poultry, but to the starter I say, "Keep your birds out of any class to be judged in this way, unless you are out for show points, for remember that if .you entered the hen 'that Jack-o'-the-Beanstalk stole from the Giant, and which laid golden, eggs, you would be beaten by a fancier who had a second or third rate show bird t-o exhibit." All other countries'- who have formulated a standard have thought it of sufficient importance, to place it in the hands of the very strongest and) best men they had, capable of handling the subject, such as the American Poultry Association, while in England each breed of any importance is usually gov- ' erned by a club bearing its name, such as Minorca Club, Game Club, : and so on. These draw up- th© points, and submit them to the governing body for approval and adoption, but here—well, I think I'll draw up one by and by, and patent it. It's as easy as falling off a log —tor New Zealand pouhrymen. Any, one can do it if they like, and have sufficient assurance. (To be continued next week.)