280 



THE GARDEJN AND FIELD. 



November, 1913. 



same basis, and the Black Orpington 

 and White Leghorn are level. 



To make sure of the matter we have 

 just looked up Mr. A. A. Dunnicliff. 

 jun.s splendidly compiled analysis of 

 the ten years' egg-laying tests, and 

 find that in the five two-year tests the 

 White Leghorn occupied third place, 

 the Silver Wyandotte fifth place, and 

 the Black Orpington seventh place of 

 the fifteen breeds treated of. The 

 figures are: — 502 White Leghorn, 

 value of eggs per head 34/4; 150 Sil- 

 ver Wyandotte. 31/6; 264 Black Orp- 

 ingtons, 29/10; if we add the meat ex- 

 cess on the same basis we get for 

 the two years' gross return per 

 head: — 



1. Black Orpington £1 15 10 



2. Silver Wyandotte £1 15 6 



3. White Leghorn £1 14 4 



— A Good Case. — 



Yes, on those figures, and they are 

 more or less applicable ^to all tests 

 and all breeds, the general purposes 

 people have a good case. A specially 

 well-grown Orpington or Wyandotte 

 cockerel would probably put up big- 

 ger breaks on their rivals. Por in- 

 stance, Mr. J. H. Hobbs mentions in 

 the volume before us, growing Buf? 

 Orpingtons to 5^ lbs. in 13 weeks, 

 and 7 lb. in four months. We remem- 

 ber Mr. F. J. Wimble giving us much 

 the same results with Blacks. In Sil- 

 ver Wyandottes Mr. W. A. E. Smith 

 used to put up some big weights, and 

 Mr. Gabb, also in Wyandottes and 

 other breeds, easily made a 50 per 

 cent, increase on average growtli. We 

 have not the figures by us, but putting 

 it at 1^ a month, at four months or 

 thereabout is within the mark. These 

 figures are not usual, but they are 'to 

 be got. As between the Leghorn and 

 his rivals, an impartial judge would 

 probably sum up that for average 

 conditions of poultry keeping, the 

 odds were in favor of the rivals, but 

 he would be careful to add that if you 

 throw a stone in any part of Austra- 

 lia you would be much m,ore likely to 

 hit a good Leghorn than a good one 

 <jf any of its rivals — there are more of 

 them, and we can safely leave it at 

 that. 



The Pearl Theory Again. 



In discussing the theory of the in- 

 heritance of laying through the male 

 we have referred to various outward 

 characteristics of comb color and 

 structural formation, which are more 

 or less exactly governed by definite 

 rules, and suggested that there is no 

 reason why other characteristics such 

 as size of eggs, color of eggs, the 

 habit of broodiness, and more import- 

 ant than all, number of eggs should 

 not be equally the result of definite 

 inborn constitutional changes,, which 

 could be equally predicted and con- 

 trolled. Because we do not know a 

 thing is really not sufficient reason to 

 suppose that it is unknowable. 



Apart altogether from any theory 

 the male bird is sometimes cre- 

 dited with a controlling influence in 

 the size of egg, more correctly he 

 transmits the quality which he in- 

 herited from his mother. If in a gen- 

 eral way, we can admit the male in- 

 fluence in size, why not in number?. 

 In color of egg the male bird has a 

 known and easily proved influence. 

 Again, it is reasonable to ask if -his 

 share in color of egg is known why 

 can not the reasonableness of his 

 suggested influence in number be ad- 

 mitted, and if that be admitted, as it 

 practically is, is the further admission 

 that this influence is predominate, and 

 can be controlled a very big step for- 

 ward. 



— Broodiness. — 

 Broodiness would on first sight ap- 

 pear to an essentially feminine qual- 

 ity, transmitted from. female to female, 

 but we know that it is not -so, and 

 that the male is equally potent. 

 Broodiness in Leghorns, for instance, 

 has been put down to too much bran 

 or too little bran, to too much meat 

 or not enough, fed to the birds them- 

 selves, though we doubt whether 

 there is any experimental evidence to 

 support this or any similar idea. Is 

 it not more reasonable to suppose 



that broodiness is the result of the in- 

 born constitutional make-up of the 

 bird. In this case it may be a con- 

 stantly recurring factor in the ances- 

 tral make-up of the breed or it may 

 have been one recently introduced by. 

 one of the acknowledged crosses of 

 the breed. Bran or no bran, meat or 

 no meat, may possibly exaggerate the 

 tendency, but that it will ever be the 

 originating cause seems more than 

 doubtful; anyway, the notion would 

 make a biologist smile. 



Broodiness, color, and size of egg- 

 are easily and quickly recognised 

 characters. They are or should be 

 easily controlled. It is reported, for 

 instance, we believe, that broodiness 

 in later years was on the increase at 

 Roscworth coinpetitions, yet one 

 would think that continuous selection 

 would ere this have been completely 

 controlled, for obviously any breeder 

 finding he had the taint in his strain 

 or flock would take care never to 

 hatch an egg from a hen guilty of it. 



If the principle on which the "Pearl" 

 theory is founded is sound such 

 breeders, though they may have re- 

 duced the trouble, will not be free of 

 it, unless they have had a lot of blind 

 luck in choosing their male birds. 

 And this seems, on competition fig- 

 ures, to be about the position. Any 

 breeder in the same circumstances 

 who has not only not hatched any 

 eggs from a broody-tainted hen, or 

 used a male bred from such a hen 

 bought from a tainted source should 

 have a non-broody flock. The strain 

 will be constitutionally "pure" as re- 

 gards broodiness. According to the 

 Mendal law, a strain may be "pure" 

 to broodiness, or white eggs, or large 

 eggs, it may be "impure," or it may 

 be simply soaked in broodiness, tinted 

 eggs, and small eggs, either one or all 

 together. The latter would really be 

 "pure" for the quality or qualities 

 which was not wanted. 



~ Birds of a "pure" non-broody strain 

 on both sides, will throw only non- 



Look the chicks over ' once in a 

 while for lice. If you find any, just 

 take clear lard and rub some well into 

 the feathers on their throats and on 

 top f)f their heads, and don't forget to 

 put some under their wings. 



4llli„iilllij.„illli llliiMiilll{i„iilllu..iilll lllii„iilllli..illll llhi„iilllii.,iilll lllji„iillln.,ulllli..iillll ill ill lllii„illllii..iilllli."''l'"'dllllla,illk. 



j E. ANDERS & SONS, | 



J AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERS, &c., FREELINQ, S.A. ^ 



J Manufacturers of High Quality STEEL CULTIVATOR SHARES. [ 



I Perfecaly Shaped to do irood work, cut out all weeds, are light in draught, and give entire satisfaction f 



A in wear. =. 



J Anders' SHARES are absolutely the best and Cheapest you can Buy. I 



J These Shares are made from special quality steel, carefully tempered, and will stand the severest | 



■1 tests. We make all bizea of Shares to fit all makes of Imported Spring Tooth Cultivators and Harrows p- 



J and for Colonial made Cultivators, either Stump Jump or plain land. With large square hole for loop | 



fixture, or ordinal y bolt hole. We can supply loops when required. Our Reversible Shares are =■ 



i Money Savers. I 



^ FARMERS ! It will yay you to use our Shares—Post your orders lo us. T 



i E. ANDERS & SONS, FREL'LING. T 



^1'"<*l|l' .|{|ti"il|||iiiiii|||iii<li|piiini|||iiiiii||| |||| |||iiiiii|||ii"i||||iiiiii|||iiiiii|||i><i||||U'Mi|||liiil^||i»iii|||ii>iii|||ii'ii|q|l|iill|||li"i||||inni|||li<q^^ 



