FANCIERS’ JOURNAL AND POULTRY EXCHANGE. 
739 

I leave it to your readers to judge how much of these two 
attributes is possessed by the writer of this grandiloquent 
editorial. I quote again, ‘‘ There can be but very little done 
to improve it,’’ ete. From what I read of the proposed ac- 
tion at the meeting last July, I should judge that a large 
force of fanciers must have spent some considerable portion 
of time to accomplish even that little. 
“Tfa person ”’—and ‘if a few unlucky errors ’’?—and ‘‘if”’ 
“if”—in fact, friend W., here lies the key to the whole 
trouble; I am ashamed to have to write it, but it is, never- 
theless true, ‘‘if’’ those who assumed the leadership at Buf- 
falo had known their business, or in other words, had had 
that thorough knowledge of the subject under consideration, 
viz., the nomenclature, phraseology, points of excellence, 
defects, what desirable and what undesirable, which was 
imperatively essential they should have, we might, perhaps, 
have avoided much of the discussion. 
But when men who have never bred a fowl fit to exhibit 
in their lives, who rely upon their hired help to ‘‘ manage”’ 
their poultry yards, and those who do not care a rush for 
poultry or poultry fanciers, save for what they can make out 
of them, undertake to make, or grow a standard, we must 
expect just about the same modicum of success as they have 
in growing fowls. True, it may be ‘‘the product of years (two 
or three) of thought and experiment,’’ but that product is 
valued higher by themselves than by anyone else. 
‘Where men are the most sure and arrogant, they are 
commonly the most mistaken, and have their given reins to 
_passion, without that proper deliberation and suspense which 
can alone secure them from the grossest absurdities.””— Hume. 
One more quotation, which applies with special force to 
the writer of this editorial under discussion, and I have 
done. 
“« Whoever is afraid of submitting any question, civil or 
religious, to the test of free discussion, is more in love with 
his own opinion than with truth.’’—Bishop Watson. 
Be XT 

s (For Fanciers’ Journal.) 
LIMITATIONS IN POULTRY KEEPING. 
For a hundred dollars spent in the purchase and careful 
keeping of a few fowls a hundred dollars may be gained each 
year. Butif this business is suddenly increased ten times, 
with the expectation that the profits will be multiplied pro- 
portionately, a failure is sure to result as arule. "We have 
known this to be the case many atime. On the other hand, 
where the experimenter has been content to feel his way 
cautiously, and having one successful colony in operation, 
to plant another without overcrowding that already existing, 
he has succeeded, and afterward again successfully repeated 
the extension. 
But we would caution our readers—so many think that if 
one hundred fowls may be kept profitably, that one thousand 
may be maintained—against believing in the possibility of 
keeping poultry, in large numbers, without an extended range 
of clean grass, or without the closest attention governed by 
the greatest skill and experience, and without every appliance 
known to the art of poultry-keeping, through which the 
fowls may be obliged to conform to the needed requirements. 
The instincts of these birds are keen and strong, and the 
knowledge, skill, and patience to conduct the business so that 
these instincts are not interfered with, but are bred, as it 
were, in the way in which they should go. Otherwise, 
strife occurs, and failure is inevitable. 
Manrtow, N. H., November, 30, 1874. James H. Morrison. 



(For Fanciers’ Journal.) 
NUMBER OF EGGS IN A HEN. 
A curRIovs point of inquiry among zoologists, has been 
for a long time, how many eggs there are in the ovary of a 
hen? To determine this, a German naturalist, a short time 
since, instituted some careful investigations, the result of 
which showed the ovary of a hen to contain about 600 em- 
bryo eggs. He also found that some 20 of these are matured 
the first year; about 120 during the second year; 135 during 
the third year; 144 during the fourth; and during the fifth, 
sixth, seventh, and eighth years the number decreases by 20 
annually. It consequently follows that after the fourth, or 
at the most the fifth, year hens are no longer profitable as 
layers, unless it may be in exceptional instances. 
James H. Morrison. 


(For Fanciers’ Journal.) 
CROSS BREEDING POULTRY. 
In the Fanciers’ Journal of Nov. 12th, ‘‘ Novice”’ states his 
desire of embarking in the poultry business, on a small or 
limited scale, for market purposes. He asks the question, 
what variety of fowls he shall cross with his Light Brahma 
hens, to obtain a fowl suitable for market purposes, and 
at the same time I presume he wishes to procure a cross 
that will make good egg producers. I cannot tell why ‘“ No- 
vice’’ or anyone else wants to cross Light Brahmas for mar- 
ket or other purposes; for, of all the fowls, in my opinion, 
nothing surpasses the pure blooded Brahma for a market 
fowl. No large fowls mature so early as they do. Any 
cross deteriorates from size and beauty, and adds nothing as 
regards the production of eggs. Any cross from a non-sit- 
ting breed produces nine times out of ten more inveterate 
sitters than the pure bred Brahma. The only cross I know 
that would prove at all satisfactory, is a cross from a Black 
Spanish cock ; and this must be continually kept up by pure 
blood. We would therefore say to ‘‘ Novice,’’ keep pure bred 
fowls, they will prove more satisfactory to you, and in every 
respect do better than a mongrel stock. 
It is a general custom in this section, and in most other 
places I presume, to introduce into the flocks any cock which 
happens to take the fancy (I have no reference to fanciers), 
no matter to what variety he may belong. The gigantic 
Brahma is crossed with the common barn-yard fowl; the 
exquisite Leghorn, the magnificent Hamburg, or the gen- 
tlemanly Spanish is indiscriminately introduced to flocks of 
any class, regardless of consequences, or without any fixed 
purpose in view, save that they thought the cock pretty, and 
supposed that by adding one pure, or as for that matter a 
half bred to their flock, they would produce just as fine fowls 
as the original pure breds, and after some twelve months 
they find their mongrels no better than their old stock, if 
so good. They are ready to cry down fancy poultry, and 
poultry breeders also, as nuisances, and try to get back to 
their old variety. It serves them right for their ignorance, 
but at the same time they do considerable to influence 
others against obtaining improved varieties. I have been 
engaged in poultry raising for some twenty years, and have 
in that time had numbers of cross breeds of various kinds; 
in fact, I have experimented time after time to produce a 
eross bred fowl that would equal a pure blood bird as to gen- 
eral utility, but I have every time failed. The only cross I 
have had that proved of any excellence was between the 
Spanish and the old unadulterated barn-yard fowl. These 
