AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST 
179 
be general, is fully apparent to any one. I find, 
however, they are all disposed of to a dealer in 
fancy-poultry, who has contracted for all that 
may be bred this season, which bears testimony 
to their growing favor in public estimation, and 
also that the returns to the breeder will be most 
liberal, in comparison to their production for 
the dinner-table. The Rouen ducks lay very 
freely if the eggs are removed, and the eggs are 
readily incubated by common h'ens; but for 
“ brood stock,” ducks only should be used for 
rearing them, or in after-time the drakes will 
be one of the “ most troublesome pests” in the 
whole farm-stead. It will be well for beginners 
to pay the fullest attention to my last remark, 
as it will prevent much vexation and disap¬ 
pointment, and perhaps an equally unfavorable 
ebullition of temper in themselves; therefore, 
except for killing, let the ducks themselves hatch 
their own offspring—a duty they will accom¬ 
plish with carefulness, perseverance, and suc¬ 
cess. The flavor of the flesh of the Rouen duck 
is really most excellent, being surpassed by 
none others, (in my own individual opinion it is 
unequalled;) besides which, the incredible 
weights attained by some birds in this variety, 
our public exhibitions will best attest. At one 
of the Birmingham shows, a drake and three 
ducks of this kind were tested (by the judges) 
with scales, against all other kinds then present, 
and exceeded the most weighty of their rivals 
by nearly four pounds; their own weight 
(though then simply taken from the pond, with¬ 
out any extra feeding,) was 26J lbs. These 
same birds were again exhibited the following 
year, (but in this instance purposely fattened,) 
when they attained the immense weight of 34 
lbs. the four! On both these occasions they 
were the first-prize birds. 
As utility in ducks is quite the most impor¬ 
tant point, I need only thus refer to their great 
size, as the best proof of their advantages—but 
will add one other trait of character in this va¬ 
riety that will place them in a very unusually 
favorable position—the ducks closely approxi¬ 
mate in size to the drakes, and not unfrequently 
are the most weight}' of the two ; whilst in most 
other kinds, the disparity of size is very glaringly 
obvious, and tells much against the value for 
consumption. In respect of plumage, the 
Rouens are (in perfectly well-bred specimens) 
exactly the color of the common wild ducks, 
the drakes being precisely similar to the mal¬ 
lard ; therefore their appearance in a pond is 
extremely prepossessing. One of the most gen¬ 
eral objections to ducks is their sad propensity 
to “stray away and get lost,” more especially if 
in the neighborhood of large rivers or other 
running streams; and it is, therefore, by no 
means unusual for parties, when this has oc¬ 
curred frequently, to give up all desire for this 
really profitable kind of stock, in a spirit of ut¬ 
ter hopelessness and despair. To these persons 
the Rouens will really prove themselves a trea¬ 
sure, for they are the most determined “stayers 
at home” possible; they never ramble at all ex¬ 
cept near home, but appear dull and lethargic, 
which accounts for the little difficulty and ex¬ 
pense in feeding; they eat no more than others, 
and obtain their very superior size and weight 
in an equally short period of time. They very 
rarely take wing, as they can only do so with 
great difficulty; and therefore, I admit, are a 
very easy prey either to vermin or any unprin¬ 
cipled stroller. Their cry, however, is extraor¬ 
dinarily dull, loud, and monotonous, (easily dis¬ 
tinguishable to an experienced ear from any 
others,) and when pursued or disturbed, well 
calculated to arouse attention in their owners. 
I have been describing the true Rouen, (not 
the puny, half-sized birds, scarcely, if an}', larger 
than the common ducks we see daily, and that 
are Rouens only in name,) and will now add an¬ 
other item or two to their characteristics. I 
know no duck that shows the abdominal pouch 
so conspicuously as the real Rouen, so much so, 
that very frequently I have seen those kept on 
a loose gravelly soil with all the feathers of the 
apron worn down to actual stumps. The eyes 
are especially small, and most deeply seated in 
the head, and the old ducks will pouch much in 
the throat, (a remarkable looseness in the skin,) 
which makes them look even larger than they 
really are. There should not be any white 
whatever in the duck’s plumage, (though I have 
known, but cannot account for it, such ducks, 
when aged, moult the flight feathers perfectly 
white, retaining, nevertheless, all the remainder 
of their plumage the original color.) The drakes 
have a collar of white feathers round the neck, 
as in the common wild drake, and the whole of 
their plumage resembles that bird in every par¬ 
ticular. When it is considered how great a pe¬ 
cuniary benefit may be attained, by the keeping 
of a few ducks, to the general farmer, it will be 
readily admitted that to the humble cottager the 
boon will be still more highly valuable, as ducks 
speedily arrive at a condition for market, and 
when there offered, generally command the 
quickest and the most universal sale of any 
poultry whatever; it may be also added, they 
are reared more readily, and will eat food of al¬ 
most any kind. It should always, however, be 
kept in remembrance, that the quality of the 
flesh is highly dependent on the nature of their 
food; therefore a proper care on this point is 
essentially necessary. I feel certain, that if a 
common degree of care, attention, and regularity 
of feeding are adopted, with ducks, they will 
remunerate the owner as well an any poultry he 
may bring before the public; and I have thus 
briefly endeavored to show that the Rouens will 
(if a properly selected brood stock) fulfill every 
hope and anticipation of their owners.— E. 0., 
in Poultry Chronicle. 
For the American Agriculturist. 
THE NATIONAL POULTRY SOCIETY-ITS 
JUDGES, &c. 
Messrs. Editors : In your paper of the 24th 
inst., I notice a communication in regard to my 
comments on the resolutions of the Judges of 
the National Poultry Exhibition, held in New- 
Yorlc last winter, that contains several misre¬ 
presentations, and I think it my duty to reply 
to it. A fair and honorable criticism of one’s 
writings is not objectionable in the least, as we 
all have our private opinions, and the press is 
open for their dissemination; but a falsifying, 
garbled criticism is unmanly, and deserves the 
severest censure. 
Your correspondent says that I “ proceeded 
to deal out a mass of slang against the National 
Poultry Society.” Now, I pronounce the entire 
assertion to be false in every particular, and 
without the shadow of a foundation. I challenge 
your correspondent to produce a single word 
that was written by me, or published in my 
paper, against the said Society. I always spoke 
well of the Society and its objects, but it was 
solely with the Judges that I joined issue. 
Your correspondent further says: “ Mr. Mi¬ 
ner laughs at the ‘ resolution’to call all full 
crested fowls, Polands.” 
In the orignal resolution, the word 11 full ” 
does not appear, and your correspondent is 
guilty of adding a word that was not in it. I 
did laugh at the idea, and do still, and should 
laugh, even if the qualifying word “ full ” had 
been in the original resolution. I am not alone 
in “ laughing” at the resolution. 
Again, he thinks that I misunderstood the 
recommendation of the Judges, that “all Asia¬ 
tic fowls be called Shanghaes ,” and that I was 
in error in supposing that the original names 
of such fowls were to be continued as prefixes, 
thus: Brahma Shanghaes, Chittagong Shang¬ 
haes, &c. I had the best of reasons for so be¬ 
lieving, as the Judges say in their report; “We 
have assigned several second premiums to 
Brahma Shanghaes,” thus assuming a style of 
nomenclature entirely neio in this country, or 
in Europe, and from which the readers of said 
Report generally considered that such was the 
style of designation that the Judges recom¬ 
mended. But, admitting that I was in error, 
and that the Judges only recommended that 
“All Asiatic fowls be designated by their color,” 
as your correspondent asserts, and I should, in 
such case, “ laugh” still more, as such a desig¬ 
nation is still more absurd, in my opinion, than 
the others. Asiatic fowls embrace Shanghaes, 
Brahma Pootras, Chittagongs, and Cochin 
Chinas. Now, Shanghaes and Cochins may 
very properly be called Shanghaes , as there is 
no distinctive feature of difference, except the 
absence of feathers on the legs of Cochins, and 
though many fowls are called Cochins with 
feathered legs; yet the legitimate distinction is 
the smooth leg of the Cochin. The Chittagongs 
proper, are a large fowl, and somewhat of the 
color of Brahmas; yet known by all good judges 
to be a distinct breed, and are so acknowledged 
by all Poultry Societies in the United States. 
They are of various hues—sometimes approach¬ 
ing to grey —sometimes to a dark color, inter¬ 
spersed with white. Indeed, to give a true dis¬ 
tinctive color to Chittagongs is impossible, so 
vai iable arc their hues. Now, I would ask in 
seriousness, how can -we designate that breed, if 
all Asiatic fowls be called Shanghaes? One 
breeder has the grey Chittagong, another the 
mottled. If the first be called grey Shanghaes, 
the second should be called mottled, or spotted 
Shangaes, and it would puzzle any man to point 
out where the grey , the mottled, the spotted, 
and the various other hues of that breed end, 
and another color commences. Morever, if we 
call a part of that breed grey Shanghaes, we 
emerge the darh colored Brahmas, and the grey 
Chittagongs in the same breed—an absurdity 
that can never be sanctioned by men of discre¬ 
tion and judgment. 
We next have the lighter colored Brahmas to 
dispose of, some of which are almost a perfect 
white from head to tail. Now, shall we call 
such, white Shanghaes? Not at all, for that 
would merge the Brahmas, and white Shang¬ 
haes in the same breed, and thus destroy the 
identity of both. 
I could thus go on and show the absurdity of 
the recommendation of the Judges in a dozen 
other aspects, but I have no time to spend on 
the subject, beyond this brief exposition of 
the case. I stated in my paper, the “ Northern 
Farmer,” that the “resolutions” and “recom¬ 
mendations” of said Judges were no more the 
act of the National Poultry Society, than that 
of the Emperor of Russia, and I say so still. 
Being placed in a temporary position for the 
specific object of judging of the merits of fowls, 
as exhibited, and under the names acknowledged 
by the Society in giving publicity to the exhibi¬ 
tion, there their duties terminated, and they 
were, in passing “resolutions” in regard to the 
nomenclature of poultry, assuming a dictatorial 
authority, with which they have nothing to do; 
nor do I admit the right even, of any Poul¬ 
try Society , to make laws for the nomenclature 
of domestic poultry for the country in general. 
T. B. Miner. 
Author of the Domestic Poultry Booh. 
Clinton, N. Y., May 26, 1854. 
South American Guanos. —Our attention has 
been called to the fact that some guano mer¬ 
chants are at present vending Patagonian and 
Chilian guanos, and others of inferior quality, 
from South America, under the name of South 
American guano. Purchasers should insist on 
knowing from what part of the coast of South 
America the guano comes, as South American 
guanos embrace Peruvian, Angamos, Bolivian, 
Chilian, Patagonian, &c. We may here also add 
that the recent importations of Patagonian are 
so inferior, that they are not worth the freight 
which has been paid, and that they have been 
sold wholesale at such prices as to enable the 
purchaser to retail them as a cheap parcel, 
although he is obtaining double what he paid 
for it. We would recommend to farmers to 
ascertain, when purchasing guanos in store or 
at a railway station, from what partof the South 
American coast the guano was originally im¬ 
ported, and also the name of the vessel, with 
the port in this country at which the cargo was 
