JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
104 
f February 2, 1882. 
point ought to bring it. Why not Black Silkies too 1 If of a rich 
lustrous black they would be very handsome. 
To come to Bantams—there seems, as we have often said, an 
unlimited field for the production on a tiny scale of any of the 
recognised types of larger fowls. It is the constant lament of 
every Bantam fancier that he cannot procure Pekins. Why does 
no one try to produce them by the reduction of the Cochin ? This 
must once have been done in China. It is true that we are 
probably more impatient for visible proofs of progress than are 
the fanciers of the Celestial Empire, and we have no idea how 
long the production of the original Pekin Bantam may have 
taken. Still the task is by means a hopeless one. Cochins in¬ 
terbred and underfed will degenerate like other races; and we 
have a Bantam family in plumage by no means unlike the desired 
type—viz., Nankins. In the same way, too, as within the last 
quarter of a century, the best known sorts of Game—Black¬ 
breasted and Brown-breasted Reds, Piles and Duckwings, have 
been produced in miniature, might the revived Blacks and Brassy¬ 
winged, and Cuckoos be reduced. The fancier fortunate enough 
to show such Bantams first would gain well-merited celebrity. In 
these and other directions is there much scope for the intelligence 
and perseverance of a true fancier. Breeding for particular 
points is no haphazard work, though now and then a lucky chance 
may seem to bring us by some royal road at once to the desired 
goal. In another article we hope to give a few hints, necessarily 
very general ones, for the commencement of breeding with a 
definite purpose. In our opinion there are now too many exhi¬ 
bitors who simply breed for prizes, fame, and gain ; and too few 
fanciers who delight to watch, as an ornithological study, the 
variations of plumage and qualities which follow particular unions 
of poultry.—C. 
RESULTS OF POULTRY-KEEPING. 
Having gained many valuable hints from the Journal of Hor¬ 
ticulture about the management of poultry, my experience during 
the year 1S81 may prove of some interest to your readers. Many 
contend that poultry-keeping is unprofitable, but this is by no 
means the case when well and properly attended to. I could 
point to failures and loss arising from no other cause than negli¬ 
gence. My stock on January 1st consisted of fifteen hens and 
two cocks (mongrels], which cost £1 18,9. 3 cl., or 2 . 9 . 3 cl. each. 
From these 2240 eggs were obtained, thirty-eight being used for 
sitting purposes, thus reducing the number for sale to 2202 , value 
£11 05. 2d. at 105. per hundred. From the thirty-eight eggs 
twenty-four chickens were hatched and reared to maturity; ten 
were cocks, and the remaining fourteen pullets. I sold fifteen 
for £1 G 5 . 6 d., fourteen atl 5 . 9 d. each, and one for 25. Their food 
during the year cost £5 3s. Three hens died, this being a loss 
of 65 . 9 d. I have now in stock twenty-three birds, value at 2 , 5 .3 d. 
£2 115. 9 d., which leaves me a balance of profit of £7 10 . 5 . 5 d. 
My fowls have an unlimited grass run, which I consider essential. 
I give them warm food in the morning, consisting of bran and 
Indian meal and scraps from the house, and Indian corn at noon 
and night.— Thomas Elsworthy, Court Iley , Liverpool. 
[We shall be glad to have the experience of others relative to 
the profits, or otherwise, of poultry-keeping.—E d.] 
NOTES ON THE LIVERPOOL SHOW. 
The North Haymarket is a fairly suitable building for a show, and 
indeed, under the atmospheric conditions which prevailed on Wednes¬ 
day and Thursday last week, the building in most parts was all that 
could be desired in the matter of light. But for a delay in getting 
the birds penned and a consequent delay in the judging the manage¬ 
ment was first-rate. The birds were well fed and otherwise attended 
to, and the awards were very rapidly posted on boards prepared for 
the purpose. The entries were considerably in excess of last year’s 
numbers, and reached a total of nearly 1200 . 
Mr. R. E. Horsfall adjudicated upon the Brahma classes, and 
his appointment as Judge was apparently appreciated by the leading 
exhibitors, who were nearly all represented. His awards were gene¬ 
rally ajiproved except in the one instance of the first-prize Dark 
Brahma cock. Here Mrs. Williams was awarded first for a bird 
which should, we thought, have given way to Mr. Comyns’s second- 
prize bird, which was good in size, shape, and colour, and only failed 
slightly in comb. Third was Mr. Mitchell’s well-known winner. 
The Dark Brahma cup went to Mr. rercival’s hen which was first at 
Wolverhampton ; second going to a large well-pencilled bird of Mr. 
Comyns, which was a trifle long in back. 
In cockerels Mr. Edmondson and Mr. L. Norris stood respectively 
first and second with very good birds ; while in pullets Mr. Comyns 
was first with a very shapely and evenly marked pullet. Mr. Norris 
here won second and third, the former honour going to a pullet which 
was, we believe, a daughter of the celebrated cup pullet of last year. 
Mr. G. H. Wood stood first in the class for Light cocks with the bird 
upon which we recently commented. The cup for this section was 
awarded to Messrs Birch for their fine hen to which a similar honour 
was awarded at Belfast; Mr. Norris being second, and Mr. Wood 
third with equally well-known specimens. 
Mr. Norris repeated his Cambridge victory in the Light cockerel 
class, Mr. Percival’s bird which stood second at Wolverhampton being 
second here. We were pleased to see Mr. Lucas again at the head 
of the list with a beautiful pullet. The other honours in this class, 
which was a specially good one, went to Mr. G. H. Wood, Messrs. 
Birch, and Mr. Norris. _ 
In the Cochin classes the winners at the leading shows fought 
their battles over again, the cup going to Mr. Darby’s Whites ; and 
first prizes to Mr. Percival for Buffs and Partridge, and to Mr. 
Southern for his fine hen of the latter variety. Game were nume¬ 
rously represented. The cup for cocks here went to Mr. Lyon for 
his beautiful Black Red, that for hens being awarded to Mr. C. W. 
Brierley’s Brown Red. Messrs. Staveley and J. Mercer also won 
firsts, the former for Black Red hens, and the latter for Brown Red 
cocks. The first-named gentlemen were also successful in the class 
for Duckwing hens ; the first for the cocks of this variety going to 
Mr. J. Knowles. First and second in both classes for Piles were 
awarded to Mr. Brierley. Dorkings had only one class. First went 
to Mr. W. Peacock for good birds of the Coloured variety, and second 
to Mr. L. Pilkington’s Cambridge winners. 
SrANlSH were not very numerous, but the best birds of the year 
were there, the cup being awarded to Messrs. Wingfield & Davies, 
and the second to Mr. W. R. Bull. The cup for the French varieties 
was deservedly awarded to Mr. W. Jackson’s fine pen of Creve Coeurs 
which stood first in the Variety class at Wolverhampton. 
Bantams had a liberal classification and numerous entries. Mr. 
G. Hall took the Game classes, and Mr. G. F. Hodson the remainder. 
The awards were too numerous to be given in detail. The cup for 
the Game section went to Mr. J. A. Nelson with a smart Black Red 
cock, that for Bantams other than Game to Mr. Brierley’s Black 
Rosecombs. 
The Pigeon classes were nearly all well filled, Tumblers, Dragoons, 
Owls, and Jacobins being most numerously represented. The cup- 
winners in these classes were Messrs. M. Weston, R. J. Greenhalgh, 
J. C. Naylor, and J. Pyper in the order named. 
OUR LETTER BOX. 
Concentrated Manures (I). D .).—We cannot advise you respecting the 
value of any concentrated manures, as they are open to much objection unless 
ascertained by analysis to be adapted for the crops intended to be grown. As 
members of the Royal Agricultural Society have the privilege of obtaining 
an analysis from Dr. Yoelcker at a small cost, we advise purchasers to obtain 
the manures they require by guaranteed analysis, and if they have any doubt 
about their value, as soon as the bulk is delivered to take a fair sample from 
several bags, mix them and send them to be analysed by a competent person, 
asking for the value of the article to the purchaser. Instead of concentrated 
manures, we prefer to buy our articles separately and mix them for the different 
crops. 
METEOROLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS. 
CAMDEN SQUARE LONDON. 
Lafc. 61° 32' 40" N.; Long. 0° 8'0" W.; Altitude,111 feet. 
DATE. 
9 A.M. 
IN THE DAY. 
1882. 
• or 
e* 03—, 
P M ®a) 
gS® 55 
Hygrome¬ 
ter. 
CJ . 
O 
£ Pl 
Sr 
I Temp, of 
Soil at 
1 1 foot. 
Shade Tem¬ 
perature. 
Radiation 
Temperature. 
Rain. 
January. 
Dry. 
Wet. 
££ 
So 
Max. 
Min. 
In 
sun. 
On 
grass. 
Sun. 22 
Inches. 
30.632 
deg. 
38.4 
deg. 
37.7 
E. 
deg. 
39.3 
deg. 
41.2 
deg. 
33.2 
deg 
42.3 
deg. 
25.5 
In. 
Mon. 23 
30.559 
343 
34.0 
N.W. 
38.7 
38.0 
29.0 
40.3 
22.1 
Tues. 24 
3H.707 
84.3 
33.4 
W. 
38.3 
41.3 
28.8 
57.9 
23.3 
_ 
Wed. 25 
30.733 
29.0 
29.0 
N. 
• 7 0 
38.7 
27.4 
42.8 
21.3 
_ 
Thurs. 2(1 
30.583 
31.0 
30.2 
S.W. 
37.0 
35.0 
28.4 
34.3 
23.9 
_ 
Friday 27 
30.377 
40.3 
40.0 
.B. 
36.8 
**7 2 
30.9 
50.5 
29.4 
— 
Satur. 2S 
30.311 
46.8 
45.2 
s. 
38.3 
51.2 
39.7 
55.0 
35.1 
— 
30.558 
36.3 
35.6 
38.0 
41.8 
31.1 
46.2 
25.8 
— 
REMARKS. 
22nd.—Slight fog in morning; very dark from 11 A.M. till 1.30 P.M.; finer in 
afternoon, but hazy. 
23rd.—Misty dull morning ; finer in afternoon and evening. 
24th.—Frosty, fine, sunshine in morning still hazy. 
25th.—Frosty ; thick white fog in morning ; very dark from 10 A.M. till 1 P.M., 
clearer in afternoon; very thick fog came on suddenly at 6 P.M., con¬ 
tinued till 7.45 p.m. 
26tli.—Hazy and cold ; fog at night. 
27th.—Slight fog in morning ; fine day and milder. 
28th.—Fine and mild. 
Barometer still remarkably high, temperature near the average and no rain.— 
G. J. Symons. 
