JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 23 
therefore, with great advantage be mixed with other feeding 
which is deficient in this respect. 
Dari, which has been recently introduced as an article of 
poultry food, contains eight or nine per cent, of flesh-formers. 
There can be no hard-and-fast rule laid down as to feeding the 
breeding stock. The Asiatics are so very different from some of 
the other breeds, such as Spanish, Hamburghs, See., that a course 
of feeding which is suitable for these latter sorts would be far 
too fattening for the Asiatics. The food must be selected accord¬ 
ing to the variety kept, and must also be varied to suit the 
season of the year. Indian corn, for instance, which contains a 
large proportion of warmth-giving materials (fat, starch, &c.), 
should be chiefly used in winter, and may be given to the breeds 
which are not apt to run to fat in larger quantities than the birds 
of fuller habit. It may also be given with less danger of evil 
results when the hens are in full lay than at other times. A 
change of food is beneficial, and for this reason mixtures of whole 
grain are not to be recommended. It is far better to give one 
grain for a time, and then change to another, than to give a mix¬ 
ture of several. 
With regard to soft food the case is different. Here the means 
of varying the character of the food are numerous, and a judicious 
blend of meals, with potatoes, parsnips, turnips, &c., may with 
advantage be resorted to. 
The soft food should, when possible, be cooked, just as much 
water as the meal w ill absorb being used. Cooked food is much 
more easily assimilated than raw, and the mixture of a moderate 
proportion of water helps the process of digestion. A liberal 
supply of fresh green food is indispensable, and if the birds be 
confined a small portion of animal food may be given with 
advantage. 
The supply of gravel or sand to keep the gizzard at work, and 
of lime rubbish in some form to make the shells for the eggs, 
must not be omitted. 
The feeding of the chickens has, as we have already said, an 
important bearing upon their maturing early or late, and conse¬ 
quently upon their ultimate size. Where size is an object food 
containing too large a proportion of flesh-formers must, after the 
first two or three months of the chicken’s life, be withheld or 
given only in conjunction with other food containing bone¬ 
making materials. Bone-meal has of late years been largely 
used for mixing with chickens’ food, and may with advantage be 
used from the first and continued until the birds reach maturity. 
About one-tenth of it added to the soft food is sufficient. 
During the first three months of the chick’s life no apprehen¬ 
sion as to forcing the birds to too early a maturity need be felt, 
and food containing plenty of flesh-formers, as also a moderate 
supply of meat, may be given. 
Oatmeal should at first form the chief food, varied with a mix¬ 
ture of Indian meal and middlings ; later on the quantity of 
oatmeal must be diminished and bran may be added, while after 
three months buckwheat, wheat, or barley may be given, as grain 
with barley-meal, middlings, bran, and Indian meal a3 the chief 
materials for forming the soft food. Pea-meal in moderate quan¬ 
tities is good at first, but should be avoided afterwards as being 
too stimulating. 
Where size is not an object, and early maturity is desired, a diet 
in which flesh-formers are largely present may be adopted 
throughout. 
A word of caution may be added as to breeds in which large¬ 
ness of comb is a disadvantage. Here especial attention to the 
exclusion of all over-stimulants from the food is essential. We 
have seen more than one first-rate Brahma cockerel spoiled by 
injudicious kindness in the matter of feeding. A few scraps of 
meat gathered from the lunch table have just been too much 
for a springing comb which was all right before, and the prize 
which would otherwise have been gained has had to go else¬ 
where. 
The quantity of food and the number of meals to be given 
have been so often discussed in these columns that we do not 
think it necessary to deal with them here. 
FANCIERS v. FARMERS. 
Anyone reading the article headed as above in your last issue 
would think that there is a certain number of persons who wish 
to decry everything in the way of poultry, more especially the 
Dorking fowl. As I believe I am one of those alluded to, for the 
reason that I have consideied it a duty incumbent on me as one 
knowing for the last half century or thereabouts from actual 
observation, and also from those who kept the true Dorking, 
Sussex or Surrey fowl as it was called—the Dorking being the 
white variety of the latter two, and they otherwise being all one 
breed—I feel, I say, it a duty to prevent if I possibly can the ex¬ 
tinction of such breed, and its name, &c., being shifted on to a 
mongrel. 
It has been stated by several that the Dorking was not a true 
breed. I affirm that it was as much a true breed as a Polish, a 
Cochin, or a Hamburgh fowl—as much a true breed as in cattle 
is the Sussex, the Shorthorn, the Hereford, and others. I know 
from long observation of the different stocks of poultry of 
farmers in Surrey, Sussex, and Kent that the utmost care was 
taken to keep and preserve the breed pure, and I was a mere 
child when my father, who kept Dorkings before I was born, 
pointed out to me, while looking at fowls belonging to an uncle 
of mine, that the peculiarity of the fowl consisted much in its 
having a white leg and five toes ; and I also remember my father 
saying (and it made a great impression on me at the time) that 
as far as he knew it was the only breed that had a white leg on a 
dark fowl, and often in later years have we talked about this par¬ 
ticular breed—its size, quality, and general usefulness. Also, I 
have three uncles who were most particular to keep their stocks 
pure, besides other friends who prided themselves in their poultry. 
It has been stated, and which I say is inaccurate, that the 
Dorking is a composite fowl. If so, where did it get the white 
leg from ? as I can confidently state that in the stocks of these 
birds that were kept by my family and others that I knew, I never 
saw any but pure white legs, and the form and quality for table 
purposes left nothing to be desired. 
Again referring to cattle, the Shorthorn has what the present 
so-called Dorking fancier would call fancy points, such as the 
pure white nose, See. It is bred solely for “ table purposes,” and 
yet no animal would be noticed in a Shorthorn class with a dark 
nose. The prizes are for Shorthorns, and not for a cross-breed. 
So in the Sussex classes of cattle ; they all have their points of 
breed, and those points have been carefully kept, and yet in each 
and also other breeds grand results have been the consequence. 
Then why is the true breed of Dorking to be obliterated as a fowl, 
and crossed and crossed till it no longer has the points showing 
the pureness of the stock ? A Booth or a Bates, taking the Dork¬ 
ing in hand as they did the Shorthorn, would have produced much 
finer results from the pure Dorking, keeping it pure by selecting 
the best and the best, and not crossing and crossing, and abso¬ 
lutely doing away with some of the most certain indications of the 
purity of the breed. I firmly believe that the birds of which I 
write are the actual descendants of those described by Columella. 
At least this I can say, and that most truthfully, the birds that I 
remember in my young days answered fully to the description he 
gives, and his accuracy of description is universally acknowledged. 
In the article it is said “ ‘The praisers of the time that is past’ 
declare that the Dorking of to-day is a miserable impostor. It 
has nothing to recommend it to any other notice than a general 
condemnation. It has black feet, it has big bones, it has coarse 
flesh, in a word it is everything that is bad.” Now, sir, I must 
say this is a most unfair statement of what has been said, at least 
by myself. What I have said is that the fowls are not Dorkings ; 
nor are they. They are mongrels, crossed and crossed to get size, 
which their combs, legs, carriage, See., show. They are much 
coarser than the Dorking in flesh, as everyone knows, if he knows 
anything about fowls, that the larger the fowl the coarser the 
grain of the flesh must be, and they are much larger in bone ; but 
I never have seen anyone who said they had black feet, therefore 
I dismiss this part as a wrong statement. I, nor anyone, I believe, 
ever said they were worthless, for some people like large coarse 
meat. What I said, or intended to say, was that they were not 
Dorkings, and as such were not entitled to be exhibited in a 
Dorking class more than a cross-bred in a Shorthorn class. It is quite 
true that I have seen the winners of prizes and much-lauded birds 
that were not Dorkings at all. It is not a matter of conjecture on 
my part; I know it. A so-called Dorking which belonged to 
Mr. Fisher Hobbs took the prize at Birmingham, and Mr. Fisher 
Hobbs told me himself that it was a half-bred Cochin and Dorking. 
I know of many other cases (and when the proper time comes I 
shall declare them) where cross-breeds have won. If the prizes 
are for Dorkings, why are they given to cross-breeds? Neither in 
cattle, nor sheep, nor pigs are they so awarded, but the distinc¬ 
tive points of each breed are duly considered, and carried to the 
highest excellence. Why is the true white-legged Dorking to be 
stamped out? When you have got rid of the white leg of the 
Dorking fowl you have got rid of the only white-legged breed that 
I know of, and poultry shows were instituted to maintain the 
pureness of the different breeds. Again it said, “ The successful 
Dorking fanciers of to-day assert that as table fowls their birds 
are better than ever they were, and there are not wanting inde¬ 
pendent witnesses to corroborate this view.” 
I contend for my own part that I am a perfectly independent 
