POULTRY NOTES

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 160, 3 April 1937, Page 10 (Supplement)

POULTRY NOTES

Charcoal in the Ration

ITS MEDICINAL VALUE AND FUNCTION

(By

New Laid.)

Some practical poultry-keepers maintain that wood charcoal should always be kept before birds, while others who have had equally wide experience hold that charcoal is not only unnecessary, but useless.

Some light is thrown on the medicinal value and functions of charcoal by E. T. Hainan, M.A., of the School of Agriculture, Cambridge (Eng.), who is quoted as under in “Feathered World”:—

“From time to time wood charcoal has been used by poultry-keepers as a supplement to poultry foods, and those who have used it have claimed that it has proved of distinct value for feeding purposes. This practice has been more common on the Continent than in England, and recently the claims for its value, have been subjected to critical tests in Germany.

"The medicinal value of charcoal as a corrective to diarrhoeic conditions in both man and animals has long been recognised. In man, wood and animal charcoal in specially prepared form have been prescribed to alleviate and cure diarrhoea and intestinal fermentations, and in farm animals wood charcoal has often been used to correct the looseness of the bowels that follows the ingestion by stock of large quantities of roots and leafy root tops. This looseness of the bowels has been shown in the latter case to be due not to the watery nature of the roots or the presence of certain chemical compounds, such as nitrates or oxalic acid, but to bacteria derived from the soil present on the food when swallowed. Wood charcoal has also been effective in stopping the diarrhoea of chickens caused by bacillary white diarrhoea organisms. Its value as an intestinal antiseptic can therefore be accepted as fully established, but in addition to this it is claimed that its use in the diets of normal animals is justified, since a definite improvement in the health, vigour and rate of growth has occasionally been noted following its inclusion in a diet. Wood charcoal is prepared by the slow combustion of wood, access of air to the wood stack being carefully controlled by covering the burning stack with a layer of earth. If properly’ controlled, the result is the production of a mass of black charcoal, which can be broken up into a granulated form or reduced to a fine black powder. Charcoal so produced consists of a light porous form of carbon containing the mineral salts that were present in the wood from which it was formed. These minerals amount to about 3 per cent, of the weight of the charcoal, but apart from them charcoal contains no digestible ingredients. Wood charcoal prepared in this way exhibits the remarkable phenomenon known to the physical chemist as adsorption. If a gas is left in contact with charcoal the particles of gas become condensed on the surface layers of the charcoal, or, as the physical chemist prefers to call it, adsorbed. . Similarly, owing to this power of adsorption, colouring matters, bacteria and organisms of a like nature, and certain toxic chemical compounds can be removed from solutions by passing them through a prepared charcoal filter. This adsorptive property of charcoal is taken advantage of in industry to decolourise solutions, to purify contaminated water, and in warfare to remove poisonous gases from the atmosphere. By absorbing the gases that arise during intestinal fermentations the discomfort of “wind” is prevented, by adsorbing the bacteria responsible for such disturbances their normal action is hindered, and by adsorbing the toxic substances produced by such bacteria these substances are prevented from exerting their harmful effect on the digestive system. What Investigations Show.

For all the conditions mentioned above the inclusion of wood charcoal in a mash or as a food supplement is clearly justified. Is it justified, however, under normal conditions in poultry feeding I 11ns question has been investigated by I rofessor E. Mangold and IT. Damkoluer, who arrived at the following conclusions: (1) Wood charcoal is freely and readily eaten by young chicks, growing stock, and adult fowls. On the average, the amounts so eaten by free choice approximate to 1.5 per cent, of the total food intake. , . (2) Wood charcoal, consumed in the granular form, is readly broken down to the form of a fine powder by the gizzard. It can, therefore, be readily given, in granular form, and there is no special need therefore, to incorporate it in the mash in finely-powdered form. (8) Its curative effect in diarrhoea was confirmed, particularly in cases where the diarrhoea was of food origin. Thus the feeding of 200 grammes of cooked potatoes to hens led to the formation of soft and liquid droppings, but these droppings became normal by the addition of 5 or 10 grammes of wood charcoal to the diet. Again, watery droppings caused by the addition of 30 to 40 grammes of sugar to a diet were cured or prevented by the addition of wood charcoal. (4) The time that food took to pass through the gut was not materially altered by the inclusion of wood charcoal in the diet. Digestibility determinations showed that the digestion of the protein of the food is not increased by the addition of wood charcoal, but there was evidence of a slight increase in the digestibility of the starch, and a still larger increase in the digestibility of the fibre. These increases, however, were not sufficient to affect materially the digestive efficiency of the food. (5) The inclusion of wood charcoal in the' diet did not affect the growth rate of chicks, nor were any significant differences noted in the growth of young pullets. The wood charcoal in thes.e experiments was fed at levels varying from 5 to 20 per cent. (6) In fattening experiments on flmall groups of young cockerels, a distinct increase in liveweight gains was noted where 10 per cent, of wood charcoal was added to the fattening ration. Unfortunately, the increased value noted in (he experiments quoted was obtained with such a small number of fowls ■that it cannot be accepted at the present time as established beyond all doubt. It is the author’s intention, as soon as a favourable opportunity allows, to test this point more fully. Music in the Laying Shed.

There appears to be no limit to the lengths to which experimentalists will go in their efforts to induce hens to lay. A recent English poultry journal is responsible for the statement that Mr. John Barker, of the Model Egg Farm, Crawley. Sussex, is trying to find out if musk’ has any effect on hens and their laying, and to this end has installed four loudspeakers in one of his laying houses. Poultry Science—A School Subject. An interesting and useful experiment is being carried out by the Caithness Educational Authority, Scotland, which has embarked on the teaching of poultry science at the Halkirk Public School. The headmaster, Mr. Reid, is a keen supporter of the course, and has co-operated enthusiastically with the county poultry instructress who gives students three hours’ teaching each week. The subject counts in the pupils’ quarterly examination. In the spring of 1936, the Authority supplied the following equipment:—One Bft. x 6ft. poultry house, together with the necessary posts and wire netting to enclose the appropriate sized grass run; one 6ft. x 6ft. store; and one 100-egg size incubator. Eggs were purchased from reliable sources, incubated and after the requirements of the plant were met, the surplus chickens were sold in the district. The total initial expenditure was £25. The stock at present consists of 20 White Wyandotte pullets, which are mated to Rhode Island Rod cockerels for the production of sex-linked ehickous.

Last season the incubator was boused in the school science room, and, after the requirements for the school experiment had been, supplied, it was used to hatch eggs brought by the children for the purpose. Al) stock concerned is blood-tested for B.W.D. The eggs brought by the children were set on the rota system, one lot being put in after the previous lot, and the results obtained by this method were very satisfactory—about 70 percent. of <‘ggs set. Hearing results were also good. Treatment of Eye Roup.

One or tw T o doses of bisulphate of quinine is said Io be a sure cure for eye roup in the early stages, without treatment of the eye. Give each ailing bird as much quinine as will cover a threepenny piece, up to what will cover a sixpence, in a pill of wet mash.—“Poultry.’ Ordering Day-ald Chicks.

In some hints to those who intend stocking by day-old chickens, Mr. Jas. Hadlington, formerly New South Wales Government poultry expert, writes as follows in the New South Wales "Herald” :—

"First of all order early, even if the chicks are not required before mid-season. The early ordering of requirements places the hatcheries .in a better position to cater for them, besides which there is always the possibility that, due to no fault of their own. hatcherymeu may have mishaps, causing their plans to go astray, with consequent delays in executing orders to time. Since there is now a disposition to crowd the hatching season into about two months, it generally means late chicks for somebody. There should be no illusion about this crowding the hatching into August and September in order to escape the liability of the earlier birds to moult in the late summer or autumn. In the first place, other things being equal, the strongest chicks come from June and July hatchings, and even August-hatched are uot immune from liability to the chicken moult. In fact. Sep-tember-hatched chickens are not wholly immune, while October is, generally' speaking, too late to have any but very small lots, which are intended to be brooded under natural conditions. “While there will always be a percentage of ‘runts’ in chickens, no matter in what month they’ are hatched, it has (o be admitted that thousands of good chicks are ruined in the rearing either from inexperience or faulty equipment for brooding. One of the main causes of poorclass day-olds is. however, the practice of penning hundreds of immature pullets in flock matings in order to have .early chickens. This is quantity’ rather than quality with a vengeance. These, and the very late chickens, are responsible for undermining Ihe stamina and physique of the breeds.”

Overdoing Medicines.

Referring to the all-too-common practice of adding a drop of some sort of medicine to the drinking water. Leonard Robinson, writing the official journal of the Scientific Poultry Breeders' Association expresses the opinion that there is undoubtedly too much medicine consumed On the average farm, there being a tendency’ to use something out of a bottle at the slightest sign of ill-health. This is fundamentally wrong and certainly very bad for the birds, hut it is not so injurious as the continual use of disinfectants and medicines as a means of preventing disease. Fowls do not like medicated water, and will not drink it if they can get any other. This is quite sufficient to affect production and the general health of the flock, but where disinfectants and other things are used continually the effect is liable to be serious. In this respect there is no better example than the comparatively harmless Epsom salts. For the purpose of treating certain diseases of poultry it is of considerable assistance, but salts should be reserved for the sick. The continual dosing of healthy birds for the purpose of preventing disease will do more

barm than good. Purging lowers the tone of the bowel, and, if persisted in, may set up inflammation, to be followed by other complications. Too much medicated water, especially where strong disinfectants are used, is bound to have a bad effect on birds. It causes a reduction in the amount of water and food consumed, interferes with the normal process of digestion, the birds get run down, and so instead of preventing ill-health it actually encourages it. In the event of infectious disease, Mr. Robinson adds, disinfectants in the drinking water may be of considerable help, or so’we are told, but on this point I do not feel qualified to express an opinion. Of course, we have seen cures effected following the use of these things, though the apparent cure is not always the real one. In any event, disinfection of the drinking water will not prevent, a virulent outbreak of disease running its course: of this we have had many examples. While disinfectants are frequently used in excess for the birds themselves, the disinfection of poultry plant and equipment is often neglected. This is a pity, because the cost of efficient «teralization is in most cases negligible, and will do much to prevent epidemics. This disinfection of incubators and brooders should be regarded as routine work, something that should be done after each batch of chides has passed through them. EGG-LAYING CONTEST Massey College Results The following are the first week's results for the seventh egg-laying contest conducted at Massey Agricultural College, , Palmerston North: — I SINGLE PENS. Section A. A. A. lloare. IV.L.. No. 1 6; A. G. Mumby, IV.L., No. 3 (5; A. S. Harrison, W.L., No 25: G. IV. Hawkins. IV.L., No. 25; Miss H. Reddell. IV.L., No. 25; J. Mold, IV.L., 5; A. J. Shailer. IV.L., 5: Sunny River Poultry Farm, IV.L., No. 3 5: IVhenuapai Poultrv Farm, IV.L., 5; 0. H. Markland, IV.L., No. 3 4:0. 11. Markland, IV.L., No. 4 4: A. G. Mumby, IV.L., No. 4 4: IV. Scott, IV.L.. No. 24; Sunny River Poultry Farm, IV.L., No. 14; A. S. Harrison, W.L., No. 1 3: J. T. Hazelwood, IV.L., 3: Miss H. Reddell, IV.L., No. 1 3; (>. 11. Markland, IV.L., No. 1 3; O. H. Markland, IV.L., No. 23: IV. Scott, IV.L., No. 3 3; A. J. Severn, IV.L., No. 1 3; A. ,T. Severn, IV.L., No. 3 3; Sunny River Poultry Farm, IV.L., No. 23: C. L. IV, Urquhart, IV.L., 3: P. Wills. Bru. L„ No. 23: J. Wilson,

IV.L.. 3; Mies 11. Reddell, IV.L., No. 3 2; IV. N. Laws, IV.L., No. 1 2: ,1. Reilly, IV.L., 2: IV. Scott, IV.L.. No. 12: A. J. Severn, IV.L., No. 22; P. Wills. Bru. L„ No. 1 2: Mrs. M. L. Douglas, IV.L., 1; G. IV. Hawkins, IV.L., No. 1 1; A. G. Mumby, IV.L., No. 11: A. G. Mumby, IV.L., No. 2 1; Hangiuru Egg Ranch, IV.L., No. 21; Rangiui’u Egg Ranch, IV.L., No. 3 1 ; Ancona Stud Poultry Farm, Anc., 0; J. A. Annan. IV.L., 0; Mrs. R. It. Cannon, IV.L., 0; A. A. Hoare, IV.L., No. 20: Mrs. L. Hubhard, IV.L., 0;,IV. N. Laws. IV.L., No. 2 0; P. Mummery, Min., No. 1 (I: P. Mummery, Min., No. 20; Rangiuru Egg Ranch, IV.L., No. 1 0. Section B. Huxtable Bros.. 8.0., No. 1 6; R. Feist, R.1.R., 5: IV. Fletcher, A. 0.. No. 1 5; IV. 0. Gould, R.1.R., 5: Huxtable Bros., 8.0., No. 25; Mrs. IV. J. Huxtable, 8.0., 5; IV. A. Larsen, A. 0., No. 1 5; J. D. Rowlands, R.1.R., No. 1 ,T. D. Rowlands, R.1.R., No. 25; Miss E. T. Somer, R.1.R.. No. 1 5: Miss E. T. Somer, R.1.R., No. 2 5; Mrs. M. L. Douglas. 8.0., 4; T. B. Holdaway. R.1.R., 4: E. Jensen, R.1.R., No. 1 4: IV. A. Larsen, A. 0., No. 4 4; John Walker, A. 0., 4; D. E. Hopkins, R.1.R., 3; Ancona Stud Poultry Farm. 8.0., 0; T. Dowthwalte, 8.0., No. 1 0; T. Dowthwaite, 41.0., No. 20: T. Dowthwalte, 8.0., No. 3 0; IV. Fletcher, A. 0., No. 20; 15. Jensen, R.1.R.. No. 20; IV. A. Larsen, A. 0., No. 20: IV. A. Larsen, A. 0., No. 3 0; Miss E. T. Somer, R.LR., No. 3 0; Mrs. R. Willcrs, 8.0., 0.

TEAMS RESULTS. Section C. Mrs. G. E. Sewell, IV.L.: 4. 5, 4. 5. 5. 1. 24. Aneona Stud Poultrv Farm, IV.L.: 5, 3. 5,4, 3. 0. 20. IT. A. Lucas, IV.L.; 4. 1,1, 3,5, 0. 14. S. G. Batten. W.L.: 3,2, 4,0, 4,0, 13. J. T. Hazelwood, IV.L.: 4,3, 0,0, 2,3, 12. C. L. W. Urquhart. W.L.: 4,0, 5,2, 0,0, 11. Cotswold Poultrv Farm, W.L.: 3,2, 0, 1. 0,2, 8. M. Stephenson, W.L.: 0,0, 0,3, 1,2, 6. Section D. L. G. Hooper, B.O.: 2,4, 4,0, 4,4, 18. W. A. I,arsen. A. 0.: 4,1, 0. 4. 3,2, 14. G. A. Edge. R.LR.. 0,0, 4. 0, 0. 0. 4. Austral Poultry Farm, B.O.: 2,0, 0,0, 0. 0. 2. W. Mitehell, B.O.: 0,0, 0,0, 0,1, 1. Bliss Bros., R.LR.: 0. 0,0, 0,0, 0, 0. F. A. Dewhurst, R.LR.: 0,0, 0,0, 0,0, 0.