AGRICULTURAL SHOWS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 13938, 21 December 1908, Page 10

AGRICULTURAL SHOWS.

EDUCATIONAL INFLUENCES. UTILITY VERSUS NOVELTY. REFORMS NEEDED. Now that the flush of tho agricultural show season in New Zealand is over, it should be worth while to discuss those institutions, and to see what is their value to the community, and whether there is any scope or necessity for improvement. The- cost of these agricultural shows to .the country is considerable, running into tens of thousands of pounds yearly. Does the community get an adequate- return for this expenditure? Executive committees may reply very aptly to this question by saying that the community get a very good entertainment for their money, and if the community wore confined to the people who delight in a day's outing, and are willing to pay a shilling or more for the pleasure of witnessing riding and driving and leaping competitions, nothing much could be said against their contention. Only a very few officials, no matter how cynical they may he. will admit that an agricultural show is got up merely for the purpose of amusing the. general public. The idea is kept well forward that such shows are for the purpose of educating farmers and advancing agriculture. On such a plea business men are asked for subscriptions and prize money, farmers are asked to give time and labour, when their time and labour is most valuable, and judges arc invited to come from long distances and count it an honour to pass their opinion on stock. In what does the educative value of a show lie? Of course, the reply to this is well enough known. Judges decide which are the best sheep and cattle and other stock; they decide which are the best forms " of produce, and farmers, seeing the type of animal or product for which a prize has been awarded, can follow on tho same lines. This sounds reasonable, but is it true? A Shorthorn or a Romney may get the highest honours under one set of judges, and be ignored by another set at another show. The animal ignored in the Waikato may get a prize at Auckland. And does the exhibitor usually learn from the judging wherein he has failed or wherein lies the superiority of bis opponent's exhibit? If judges <rave their reasons, or, better still, if judging was ; done on points, as urged by Mr. R. Udy in a letter which we publish below, I exhibitors would at least know in which di- j rection failure or success was assigned. I Many judges object to the points system, ] but, considering that this country exports | some huudreds of thousands of pounds' i worth of produce yearly under a grading system based on points, there is evidently j no serious flaw in the method, and although j a man might be a very good judge of stock and unable to give definite reasons for his awards, or to define by points his judgment, it is no reason why this particular class of man should be appointed to set the standard at any kind of show. Another most serious defect in the utilitarian purpose of shows is the neglect shown by those in authority for the practical purposes of agriculture. It is ail very well to award prizes, even under any system, to the men who by careful selection and breeding can evolve animals perfect of their tvpe; but, after all, the success of agriculture does not so much depend upon ideal* as to what constitutes a perfect Lincoln or a perfect Ayrshire as on the ultimate result .in mutton "or wool, milk or beef. Prizes may be and have been awarded to dairy animals utterly unable to breed profitable milkers, and prizes are awarded at every show to sheep which are incapable of benefiting wool production or lamb-raising. It has been the custom also to shower honours on the breeders or feeders of huge bullocks, as if the great mountains of flesh, irrespective of quality or economy, were the ideal of the beef-producer, and the. same thing applies to roots and vegetable;.. ■ If show 3 are to be of real value- to the agriculturist or to tho : community awards should be based upon practical utility. The sheep that can produce the greatest, quantity of marketable wool, or make the most profitable mutton, or bear the most "desirable lamb, should be the object encouraged. The cow'that can yield the greatest quantity of butter-fat at the lowest cost for feed, the bullock which will put on the finest quality beef in the shortest time and furnish the largest proportion of prime joints is certainly preferable to the animal which requires several years to pile on chunks of useless .fat and a framework of heavy bones. ' One cannot get away from the fact that shows every; year are becoming more the advertising grounds for professional breeders of special breeds. That this class of work should bo widely encouraged no one will deny, for perfect purebreds are absolutely necessary for the production of the most perfect utility animal. New Zealand does not, however, depend for its wealth on any man's ideal of a , particular breed, but on that blending of breeds which givc3 us a wool export trade worth £7,000,000, a mutton and lamb trade worth oyer £1,500,000, and butter and cheese Vcxports worth . £2,000,000. It must be acknowledged once again that all breeds of slock exert an influence on our great agricultural industries. What :s too often lest sight of, however, is the fact that details , are not so important as concrete results, and our show committees have as a- rule paid more- attention to the work of attracting the public by spectacular novelties than they have to practical purposes. There need be no ? slacking off in any endeavour '? to increase the public attendance at shows, % for this is an important matter, but at the : same time to assist the increase of wool by half a pound per fleece, to make mutton or lamb for export worth an additional penny per quarter, to lift . the milk-production of dairy cows an extra hundred gallons per year, would be of more benefit to f : the farming community and to the country at' large than all the jumping and driving and riding attractions at all the shows in all parts of New Zealand. •"- JUDGING BY POINTS. Mr. John Udy writes: "In a recent article you were lamenting the shortcomings of agricultural associations for not making the shows more instructive and educational, and you suggest certain remedies, such as appointing some person to explain the whys and wherefores and the reason this exhibit got first.' and that exhibit some other prize. All,this is good advee, but impracticable, as the judge is the only person that could describe his own decisions,' and he has not tho time to do that, were he ever so anxious to instruct and entertain crowds of visitors. The remedy.- lies with the executive committee. Get the exhibits judged by points, especially the live stock. jAffix the judges' card to tho pen or exhibit with the points marked thereon, then every person could see for themselves why this got third and that first prize, etc., etc. If this was done I havo no hesitation in saying the interest taken in agricultural shows would enormously increase, and be of greater benefit to all, specially the exhibitors themselves. There is a very useful work on . judging by points, which was published by authority of the Department of Agriculture, New South Wales, about 18 years - ago. I enclose for your perusal a judge's card which I got from the secretary of tho Otago Agricultural Association 10 or 12 years ago. Another improvement could be \ made by putting a picture of the type of exhibit over the word Shorthorns," Herefords, Polled Angus, Lincolns, Shropshire*, Romneys, etc., etc., on all posters on the pens. It would lie instructive, especially to tho young people, and would remove anv reason why , they should leave the show ground not knowing a Merino from a Shorthorn.