JUDGING AT SHOWS.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XIV, Issue 3046, 8 August 1893, Page 2

JUDGING AT SHOWS.

I A good deal of discussion has been going on recently both in the Press and otherwise on the best method of judging at exhibitions of stock, poultry, dogs, etc., some advocating the plan ; generally jn vogue in these colonies of fudging by comparison of exhibits, while others are in fav^r of the system of determining the awards by pointy As the subject is one of great jn^est to farmens, and indeed to breeders of of all kinds of stock we propose to devote this article to consideration of the

question, because it is one that is likely to be brought home to us by the decision of the Wellington A. and P. Association to give judging by points a trial at its next exhibition. We may begin by briefly describing the rival systems. According to that now in vogue, the judge, whether he has to decide upon the claims of hor*e3, cattle, sheep, pigs, poultry or dogs, ignores all oatside considerations and I everybody's standard but his own; and selecting a few of the most promising exhibits, places them in an order of merit which is determined by his own individual judgment. There is no attempt to inform the exhibitor or the public as to the jgprounds upon which one exhibit is awarded the first prize, another the second, and so on. The bare fact that the judge has so decided settles the question at once and—we were going to say—for ever, but experience has shown that the same judge is as likely as not to give a different verdict, at another time and place. That another judge would probably alter all the decisions of the first might be looked for, almost as a matter of course. In judging by points the judge has to base his awards upon a standard authorised by the Associations, and necessarily approved of by the exhibitors, else they would not have entered their exhibits. The jugde is supplied with a table of points to be allotted for each quality possessed by the exhibit, and these can be regulated by the Associations in such a manner that they can retain in their own hands the power to encourage breeding for any special excellence, or with the object of stamping out any quality not considered advantageous. The judge then starts with the object of ascertaining which of the exhibits comes nearest to the standard he is to be guided by—not only in all qualities, but in each separate one. He would be accompanied by the class steward, carrying a book in 'which to enter the points allowed by the judge in each case. Cards are afterwards filled up showing these points and specifying particulars, and these are affixed to each pen in the exhibition. Supposing then that aDy person wished to ascertain the particular direction in which this or that exhibit fell short pf the required standard, he at a glance discover it on referriug to the scale of points awarded. It can easily be seen that under this system of making awards, not the breeder only, but the general public can see what special qualities have caused one exhibit to be preferred to another, and it cannot be denied that this information must have an educational value. In fact it has often been asked—what is the use of an exhibition at all to the outside exhibitor ? Year after year some exhibitors carry off the principal prizes, and year after year others send in their exhibits without succeeding in catching the judges' eye with them, and they can never quite understand how it is. Many of these unsuccessful ones withdraw altogether from competition, alleging that they cannot see any cause for their repeated failures. They are more apt to attribute their want of success to a general respect entertained by most judges for the stock of the large breeders and importers, than to any defects in their own. Without going so far as to say that there are any just grounds for such a belief, we must confess that the system in vogue in New Zealand of judging exhibits by com parison with other exhibits instead of t by a fixed standard of excellence is eminently unsatisfactory. Indeed we cannot attend an agricultural show or J a poultry show without seeing numerous illustrations of this.- Not very long ago a prominent local horse owner exhibited an animal in one season at three different shows, with the result that it was placed differently with relation to two other exhibits at all of them. In another caße, an Ashburton sheep breeder, whose judgment few would venture to question, exhibited in one of the clefcses at the Canterbury show some sheep whose a 1! round qualities constituted them, in his opinion, the pick of his flock. His disgust may be imagined when he found that the judge oh duty that day, having a fancy for sheep well woolled' on the under parts, had awarded first honours to animals inferior even in this respect t» some he had left at home, and in all other ways, far inferior to those he had exhibited. Again, at a cattle Bhow in Canterbury some time ago, we heard two old farmers criticising some bulls, one of which had a «first prize" ticket on him. Both these men were experienced breeders, and yet neither could understand why tha beast with the ticket had been given a " first,", while another in an adjoining pen had been passed over altogether. One farmer declared he would give twice as much for the neglected animal as for the other. Just then it occurred to one of the speakers to look at the catalogue, and his remark was an unconscious admission of the opinion we have referred to above. "Oh I" said he "the winner is shown by So and So," mentioning a successful importer and breeder of shorthorns. "That ex plains it j but all the same I'd take the other for choice." Later on the judge was asked to point out the superiority of the beast he had ticketed, and he replied that it was «in the coat." We have said enough to prove that agricultural and pastoral shows, and in fact any exhibitions at which the judging is left to the fads and fancies of particular judges, fail altogether to have an educating effect on breeders. There is really no specified standard of excellence set up for their instruction. The imaginary standard of the individual judge is not only constantly changing, but there are no means of ascertaining what is required to approach perfection. We cannot better show the difference between the systems of judging by comparison of exhibits and judging up to a given standard, than by saying fchat the first tends to produce negative, and the second positive results. The first merely informs the unsuccessful exhibitor that he has gone astray gomehow, and sends him home disheartened, and as much in the dark as he was before as to the peal pause of his failure. The second, while recording the failure, points to the cau&e and encourages the intelligent breeder to go on in the right direction. Much more njigfyt be said on this important subject but space does »ot permit us to deal further witb iU'n ttojs is§uf,i

' The system of judging by points has never yet had a fair trial "in this country, and we shall await with much ! interest the result of the experiment j about to be tried in Wellington. ,