Poultry Notes

Grey River Argus, 14 January 1928, Page 3 (Supplement)

Poultry Notes

By “Eggs Galore” I Il _ Il

BREED CHARACTERS. EXHIBITION IDEALS. Since the early Victorian days when Ihe Cochin-China and Brahma-Pootra set. the fashion in poultry of aristocratic lineage breeders in this and other countries have devoted themselves to evolving and perfecting a wide variety ot types, some possessing the well defined characters of the old breeds and others of a composite nature ill which it has been intended to mingle the best traits of several eiu-i’.dors. in many cases types leave be been evolved merely for exhibition purposes with consideration only fur such charnet is as will command the variety to flourished before the war and ‘particularly when the exhibition breeders exercised the chief influence in the ] oultry industry.

In keeping with the commercial de velopment since the war the newer breeds reflect a change in ideals, and th endoption of practical realism as the first qualification for a variety that is to appeal to the public taste. There is an admirable example in the Barnevelder, a Dutch variety of composite ami doubtful origin that.came to this country with a reputation for the production of those large brown eggs that have earned an enviable place in the English market for product^ of the Netherlands. It is probable that in the fiev and six years since the breed introduction much more attention has been devoted to perfecting its aesfhetic points than to the development of its productive character, which is perfectly reasonable if We are to accept ' the view that the .show pen is the breeder’s shop window. But in a breed of this character, whose original claim to notice was based upon commercial value, there is necessarily a limit to the development of exhibition characters. lest, as in so many more cases, competition among exhibition breeders leads to excesses resulting in a highly developed fancy fowl minus the useful traits that made it famous. Consideration of such a matter is speceially pertinent at the present time, when the future of the exhibition fowl is in the balance. The breeders themselves are divided into thiee or more groups. There is still quite a considerable body of the old exhibition “fanciers,” whose interests lies solely in the production of unique examples of form of feather and whose undoubted talent in breeding has been utilised in many cases in developing certain characters out of proportion to the requirements of the standard. By way of opposition there is an increasing body of “fanciers” who declare their dislike of extreme ideals without making much impression cither upon the advanced breeders or the judges; but the factor most likely to influence exhibition ideals in the future s the section of exhibition breeders who for lack of a more definite description answer to the name of “utility.” The utility shows and utility classes have attracted the support of an enormous number of people who recognise the absurdity of competing with the old “fanciers” in the production of mono>trosities and peculiarities. The fact that seven “utility” classes at the recent Dairy Show attracted an average entry of 51 a class indicates that there are still plenty of people interested in breeding exhibition poultry of a sensible and useful type and it would seem that with wisdom and discretion in the drafting of the “utility” standard this movement will, in the course of the next few years, replace the purely fancy type of exhibition fowl as bred by the present generation of “fanciers. ’

The chief danger arises from doubt regarding the standard requirements of the utility exhibition bird. Efforts that have been made to judge birds on a supposed basis of productive value have failed for the reason that actual production can only be assessed in the nest; and the present tendency seems to be to favour a modified exhibition type shorn of all extravagance. A policy of standardisation (or acceptance of the existing standard) based on the latter lines would certainly threaten the downfall of the old fancy type of fowl; but it would a misuse of the word “utility” if the present description were retained.