POULTRY NOTES

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 261, 31 July 1937, Page 10 (Supplement)

POULTRY NOTES

Feeding Soaked Wheat

TESTS AT HAWKESBURY COLLEGE

(By

New Laid.)

A review of the results of the soaked wheat feeding experiments which have been conducted for twelve months ,at Hawkesbury Agricultural College, New South Wales, indicates that birds fed on soaked wheat showed lower feed costs and higher net returns than birds fed ou the ordinary standard ration used at the college, which is as follows: Mash, 601 b. pollard, 341 b. bran and 61b. meatmeal. with 220 z. salt, and an evening feed comprising wheat, 67 per cent., and maize. 33 per cent. While no sweeping conclusions should be drawn from the results of a one-year test, particular interest attaches to the details of the full year’s test figures because of the spread of the soaked grain method of feeding within the past two years. The experiment at Hawkesbury College was divided into two sections, the first of which comprised three groups. Group 1 contained three pens of ten fowls each, which were fed on the ordinary Hawkesbury College ration. Group 2 contained a similar number of fowls and was fed on soaked wheat with 10 per cent, meatmeal (40 per cent, protein content), aud no salt; and Group 3, also containing 10 birds, was fed on soaked wheat with 6 2-3 per cent, meatmeal (60 per cent, protein content), with no salt. The fowls used were all White Leghorn pullets, which were carefully selected for uniformity of physique and breeding. . The other section was divided into two flocks of 150 White Leghorn pullets. flock 1 being fed on the ordinary college ration, and flock 2 receiving soaked wheat both morning and evening with 10 per cent, meatmeal (40 per cent, protein content), plus 220 z. salt per 1001 b. In each case a small quantity of bran was used to take up surplus moisture in the soaked wheat. This part of the experiment was not commenced until July last year, and was terminated at the'end of January. Thus the main experiment comprised groans 1,2 and 3. Over the twelve months group 1 fed on the ordinary college rations showed a feed cost of £l2/9/4 and a net value of eggs produced £2l/6/11, leaving a balance over feeding costs of £B/16/7. In group 2, fed a soaked wheat ration with 10 per cent, meat-meal (40 per cent, protein) eggs produced were valued at £l5/16/1 net and feed cost was £9/7/7, leaving a balance of £6/8/6. In group 3 fed on soaked wheat with 6 2-3 per cent, meat-meal (60 per cent, protein) the net value of the eggs was £2O/16/4} and the feeding cost £lO/3/91, leaving a balance of £lO/12/7. No salt was used in either of the soaked wheat tests.

Group 1 showed the highest production with 4528 eggs, group 3 laid 4447 eggs, and group 2, 3371 eggs. While the feeding costs in group 2 (40 per cent, protein) were the lowest, group 3 with an additional expenditure of 16/2} for meatmeal of 60 per cent, protein value showed an increase of £4/4/1 in net results. Although the check pen (ordinary mash—group 1) produced 81 more eggs than group 3 the feeding cost was £2/5/61 more.

Thus on the 12 months’ test soaked wheat with a 60 per cent, protein meatmeal gave the best results in lower feeding costs, and the net balance over feeding costs was £l/16/- better than on ordinary ration. This supports the argument that it is not so much the, number of eggs produced annualfy that counts, as the net balance over the cost of feeding. At the same time as the above-mention-ed groups were tested a flock test of 150 birds was conducted, but this only ran over a period of seven months. In this also soaked wheat feeding proved the most profitable. The check j>en laid 12,960 eggs of a net value of £55/13/9, feed cost £37/18/4, leaving a balance of £l7/15/5. The soaked wheat flock had a slightly varied ration in that 10 per cent, meatmeal of 40 per cent, protein content was used, plus 220 z. salt per 1001 b. This pen laid 1370 eggs less (11,590), but their feed cost only £27/14/10, leaving a balance of £22/4/0} or £4/8/71 more profit than the ordinary ration group. , The following detailed information on the tests is given by the New South Wales Government poultry expert, the feeding of the respective groups being as under:—

Group 1: Hawkesbury ration. Group 2, soaked wheat with 10 per cent, meatmeal (40 per cent, protein content), no salt. Group 3, soaked wheat with 6 2-3 per cent, meat-meal (60 per cent, protein content) ; no salt.

Total 12,5C0 11,590 It will be noted that group 1 showed the highest production, group 3 catnc next, and "roup 2 was the lowest, while in the flocks the pullets fed on the ordinary ration laid considerably more eggs than those fed on soaked wheat. A perusal of the table giving returns over cost of feeding over 12 months, however, shows that over the twelve months the return over cost of feed was not in accordance with the highest egg production, as group 3 showed the highest profit and group 2 the lowest, while the flock fed on soaked wheat showed a higher return than the flock receiving the ordinary ration. Keturns Over Cost of Feeding.

group 3 showed the highest return, followed by group 1, and the second group was again the lowest. In the third four months group 3 showed a much higher return than the other two. followed by group 2, the first group being lowest. Over the twelve months, however, group 3 led. followed by groun 1. and the return over cost of feeding was much lower in group 2. Of th® two flocks, those fed on soaked wh-at, although laying the smaller number of egas. cave a greater return over cost of feeding. However, concludes the Government expert, no conclusions should be drawn from one year's test, and the results have only been published because of the keen interest which has been taken in regard to this method of feeding. The pullets in the three groups were weighed at the commencement of the experiment and again at the end, as fol-

Feeding Soaked Wheat to Chicks. During the 1936 rearing season a test was carried out by feeding chickens with soaked wheat from the time they left the brooders at six weeks of age, when they were gradually changed from their ordinary ration to soaked wheat, two weeks being taken to effect the change. Three groups of chicks, each comprising 100 White Leghorns, were used, half of the chicks being pullets and half cockerels. Group 1 was fed on the ordinary ration, groun 2 received soaked wheat with_ 3 per cent, bonemeal and 7i per cent, milk powder up to twelve weeks of age, after which they were fed 5 per cent, meatmeal of 60 per cent, protein content, which was increased to 6 2-3 per cent, when the number of feeds ner dav was reduced to two. Group 3 was given 10 per cent, meatmeal of 40 per cent, protein content as soon as they were changed from the ordinary ration to soaked wheat. In each ease salt was added at the rate of 220 z. per 1001 b. The chicks were weighed at twelve weeks of age, the weights being shown in pounds:— . , L Group I—(ordinary ration) : 50 pullets, 68J; 50 cockerels, 67. Group 2—(soaked wheat, milk powder, and bonemeal): 50 pullets, 63}; 50 cockerels, 71. Group 3—(soaked wheat, 10 per cent, meatmeal, 40 per cent, protein content): 50 pullets, 72}; 50 cockerels, 64i. Weighed again at six months of age, their weights were:— Group I—so pullets, 180}; 50 cockerels, 205}. Group 2 —50 pullets, l(oi; oO cockercl*? 21S}. Group 3—50 pullets, 169}; 50 cockerels, 215}. . , Egg-nroduction commenced in eacn group at about the same time, there being onlv five davs’ difference between one group and the other two. and by the end of April 525 eggs werejaid by Group 1, 400 by Group 2, and 205 by Group 3. _ Although there was little difference in the weight of the fowls at the. end of six months, there was a marked difference in their appearance, those receiving tue ordinary ration being much better developed and more uniform and robust in appearance than the other two groups, which received soaked wheat. Moreover, it was noted that feather-eatnig had commenced in both the groups ied on soaked wheat, but not in the check group. The results showed that the fowls receiving the ordinary ration were superior to those fed on soaked wheat, and this appears to be the experience of a number of poultry-farmers who have fed young stock exclusively on soaked wheat. A further test to compare the eggproduction over a period of twelve months was commenced on May 1 this year, uf'ing the pullets raised on soaked wheat, the rations fed being the same as used for the previous twelve months test, except that salt is being added to tlie soaked wheat at a rate of 220 z. per 1001 b.

EGG-LAYING CONTESTS

Taranaki Society’s Results

The results of the Taranaki Egg-Laying Competition Soc'ety’s tenth competition for the eigtheenth week, which ended on July 24, are as followsBlack Orpingtons.—Thos. Dowthwaite, No. 1. 0-71; No. 2 5-72; No. 3, _5-70; Norman Boss, No. 1, C-S3: No. 2,5-8 o: No. 3, 4- Mrs. F. A. Warren, No. 1, 0-62; No. 2 5-87- No 3, 0-72: Mrs. W. Busby, 4-81; Mrs. It. Willers, 0-50; A. C. Donnelly 0-62; Mrs. D. M. Waddell, No. 1, 6-104; No. 2, 5- Mrs. N. Lilley, 3-11. Australorps.—Ancona Stud Poultry Farm, No 1 5-54’, No* 2, 5-59: No. 3, 0-17; J. H Hu’rdie, No. 1, 0-82 : No. 2, 0-37; No. 3, 6- Mrs. H. Moreland, No. L o-87: No. 2, 5- No.'3, 5-109; Mrs. D. R. J. Playle, No 1 0-49; No. 2. 4-19; No. 3. 0-3 S; W A Larsen, No. 1, 5-66; No. 2, replace, 2-2; No. 3 ’ Langshans.—S. T. Baston, No. 1. 5-66; No 2, 6-74: No. 3, 2-63. Light Sussex—Miss D. R. J. Playle 5-17: H. Kirkwood, No 1. 4-78; No. 2, o-81. Rhode Island Reds.-Geo. A Edge. No. 1 5-37- No. 2. 6-113; No. 3, o-97; W. Sellars 5-74; Mrs. F. A. Dewhurst, 5-46; Mrs. W O Gould, 5-93; Mrs. B. Hickman, 5-8.->; C. C. Cleaver, 6-40. White Leghorns —Cotswold Poultry Farm No. 1, 0 35: No. 2, 5-41; No. 3,-5-81; C. L. W. Urquhart. No. 1, 0-75; No. 2, 2-65; No 3 5-49; Mrs. A. W. Revell. No. 1, 5-8<: No 2 5-7- No. 3, 6-107; D. M. Peek. No. i. 0-69; No. 2, 4-33- No 3, 5-47: M Stephenson. No. 1, 4-59: No. 2, 4-75: No. 3, 6- J. T. Hazelwood. No. 1, a-SO: No. 2, 6- No. 3. 0-22; Sunny River Poultry Farm, No. 1. 6-97; No. 2, 5-96; No. 3,,4-79; Walter Scott, No. 1. 4-82: No 2, o- ( 0; No. 3. 6-81: Mrs. N. Lilley, u-64; V. G. Adams. 4-43' Mrs .1. Tippett. 6-50: Mrs. R. R. Cannon, 6-42; A. C. Donnelly, a-29: C. Hansen. 5-51; A. A. Hoare, 6-63; M henuanai Poultry Farm, 7-67; Miss E. Ladd, 5-74; Crawford Strang, 5-60; Ancona Stud Poullrßrownn’Leg<horns.—Mrs. W. Busby, 1-28. Anconas.—Ancona Stud Poultry Farm, Minorcas. —Miss D. Swadling, 5-39; W. Sellars. 4-15. , DUCRS Fawn and White Indian Runners.—L P. ■Tames, No. 1, 0-0: No. 2. 6-12; No 3, 0-0; H. 11. Melville, No. 1. 7-92; No. 2, 6-<3; No. 3. 6-67; Mrs. A. W. Revell, 7-100. Khaki Campbell.—Mrs. E. Kelly. No. 1. 7- No 2 7-120; No. 3,7-11 S; Ancona Stud Poultry Farm, 7-70. THREE-BIRD TEAMS. HEAVY BREEDS. Total

Massey College Results Following are the eighteenth week’s results of the Massey College egg-laying con. test: — SINGLE PENS. Section A.—A. G. Muinby, W.L. No. 4 (6). 95; A. A. Honre, W.L. No. 1 (4), 93; W Scott. W.L. No. 1 (5), 91; J. Wilson, W.L. (3). 90: A G. Muinby. W.L. No. 2 (5). 82: Miss 11. Keddell. W.L. No 3 (5), 81. O. II Markland. W.L. No. 3 (5), 81; J. A. Annan, W.L. (5). SO: W. N. Laws, W.L. No. 1 (5), 78; A. S. Harrison. W.L. No. 2 (o), 76;

O. H Markland, W.L. No. 1 (1). 71; P. Wills, Bn.L. No. 1 (4), 71; P. Wills, Bn.L. No. 20), 68; O. FI. Markland W.L. No. 4 (5), 67: J. Mold. W.L. (5), 67; J. T. Hazelwood. W.L. (5). 66: A. A. Hoare, W.L. No. 2 (6), 65; A. J. Shaller, W.L. (5). 64; Miss H. Keddell. W.L. No. 1 (0), 63; A. J. Severn. W.L. No. 1 (5). 62; Sunny River P.F.. W.L. (0). 62: J. Reilly, W.L. (0), 60; G. E. Moody. W.L. (5), 59; A. G. Mumby, W.L. No 3 (6) 59; A. J. Severn, W.L. No. 3 (5), 58: Mrs. M. L. Douglas, W.L. (3), 52: Rangiuru Egg Ranch. IV.L. No. 3 (5), 52: O. H. Markland, W.L. No. 2 (0), 50: P. Mummery, Min. No. 1 (3), 50; A. S. Harrison. W.L. No. 1 (3). 47; Ancona Stud P.F.. Anc. (5), 46; Miss H. Keddell, W.L. No. 2 (4), 46; Rang'uru Egg Ranch. W.L. No. 1 (4), 46; A. G. Mumby, W.L. No. 1 (2), 45: J. A. Pearce. Anc. (5). 45; Mrs. R. R. Cannon, W.L. (5), 44; W. N. Laws, W.L. No. 2 (4), 42; W Scott. W.L. No. 2 (1), 41; A. J. Severn, W.L. No. 2 (3), 38; G. W. Hawkins, W.L. (0). 37: W. Scott, W.L. No. 3 (0). 36; Whenuapai P F., W.L. (0). 35; Sunny River P. W.L. No. 3 (0). 31: C. L. W. Urquhart, W.L. (0), 31; P. Mummery, Mln No. 2 (0). 28; Mrs. L. Hubbard, W L. (0), 21: Sunny River P.F., W.L. No. 1 (3). 19; Rangiuru Egg Ranch, W.L. No. 2 (0), 11.

Section B—Mrs. E. T. Somer, R.I.R. No. 1 (7), 109; Miss E. T. Somer. R.I.R. No. 2 (5), 100: Mrs. M. L. Douglas. 8.0. (6), 9S; Mrs. R. Willers. 8.0. (5), 92; D. E Hopkins. R.I.R. (5). 91: Mrs. W. J Huxtable, 8.0. (2). 88; Mrs. w. O. Gould, R I.R. (4). S 3: Huxtable Bros.. 8.0. No. 1 (6), 82; W. Fletcher. A.O. No. 1 (4). 81: Huxtable Bros.. 8.0. No. 2 (3). 81; T. B. Holdaway, R.I.R. (5), 79; W. A. Larsen, A. No. 1 (0). 78: E. Jensen. R.I.R. No. 2 (4) 77: W. A. Larsen, A.O. No. 4 (5). 77; T. Dowthwaite. 8.0. No. 3 (6). 72: J. D. Rowlands, R.I.R. (0), 71; T. Dowthwaite, B. No. 2 (6), 67; Ancona Stud P.F.. A.O. (5) 62: R. Feist. R.I.R. (0), 62: T. Dowthwa'te, 8.0 No. 1 (5), 55: E. Jensen. R.I.R. No. 1 (0). 54: W. Fletcher. A.O. No 2 (4), 47: Miss E. T Somer. R.I.R. No. 3 (2), 38: W. A. Larsen. A.O. No. 3 (5). 33: W. A. Larsen. A.O. No. 2 (6). 30: John Walker, A.O. (0). 30. TEAMS RESULTS. Section C.

1936. Group 1 Eggs . Group 2. Group 3. Eggs. Eggs. June .. 370 192 3°1 July .. 449 204 304 August 449 549 September .... .. 568 459 October ...... ,. 536 401 56° November ,. 505 319 482 December ....... .. 414 363 463 1937 January .. 315 280 384 February ...... .. 270 269 351 March .. 219 197 321 April .. 17S 124 1’6 May .. 153 114 112 I —— ,, — — Total .. 4528 3371 4447 The flock test 11 igures are as under:— Flock 1. Flock 2. M s? . £ 2 .2 w A ** g c> fl <? >,_• 'fl ® fl o fl> qj -4 t. fl O c: s 2 ~ S’* - « s ” fl” —. * Commenced 1/7/1936. Eggs. E""s July .......... 1236 1 1174 August 21147 1787 September ..... 2388 2208 October 2582 2278 November ..... 1997 1779 December ..... 1770 1449 January 946 915 Terminated at end of January, 1937.

Four months, Juneto to Sept, 1936. Group 1. Group 2. Group 3 £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d Net value of eggs S 17 9 5 16 7 6 9* Cost of feeding 4 0 9 2 16 0 2 17 9-i Balance over cost of feeding 4 17 0 3 0 2| 4 9 0 Four months, Oct., 1936, to Jan , 1937. Group 1. £ s. d. Group 2. Group 3. £ s. d. £ s. d. Net value of eggs ...... 7 13 0 5 17 9} 8 3 6 Cost of feeding 4 8 2 3 7 6 3 16 4 Balance over cost of feeding 3 4 10 2 10 31 4 7 ,2 Four months, Feb. to Maj’, 1937, Group 1. Grou -> 2. Group 3. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d Net value of eggs 4 16 Cost of feeding 4 0 2 5 4 2 3 4 15 6 1 13 9 8 Balance over cost of feeding 0 15 The summary fnr 9 the 0 18 0 1 16 5 12 months June, 1936, to May 31, 1937, is: Group 1. Group 2. Group.3. £ s d. £ 8. d. £ b. d. Net value of eggs 21 6 11 15 10 1 20 16 4i Cost of feeding 12 9 4 9 7 7 10 3 9J Balance over cost of feed6 10 12 7 inc 8 16 7 6 8 The foregoing table shows that in the three groups at the end of the first four months, the pullets fed on the ordinary ration gave a slightly h gher return over cost of feed than le other two groups followed bv sroun 3, while g roup 2 was the lowest. In the second four months

lows At commenceAt terminament. tion. Group 1 . ... 41b. 3oz. 41b. 12oz. Grour> 2 . ... 411>. 2oz. 41b. 5oz. Group 3 . ... 41b. 2oz. 41b. Toz.

1 2 Wkly. to 3 Ttl. Pate Thos. Dowthwaite, B.O. 0 . > . 1 10 213 Norman Ross, B.O. .. 6 5 G 17 276 Mrs. F. A. Warren, B.O. 6 u 0 11 161 Ancona Stud P.F.. Aus. 5 1) 0 10 130 J. II. Hurdle. Aus. .. 0 0 6 6 219 Mrs. II Moreland, Aus. 5 5 5 15 2S3 M’ss D. R. Playle, Aus. 0 4 0 4 106 W. A. Larsen, Aus. .. 5 2 4 11 138 S. T. Bason, Lang. .. 5 6 2 7 203 Geo. A. Edge, R.I.R. .. 5 6 5 16 247 LIGHT BREEDS. Cotswold P.F., W.L. . 0 . > 5 10 157 C. L. Urquhart, W.L. . 0 2 5 7 189 Mrs. A. W. Revell, W.L. 5 ;•> 6 16 201 D M. Peek, W.L 0 4 5 9 140 M.' Stephenson, W.L. .. 4 4 6 14 215 J. T. Hazelwood, W.L. 5 6 0 11 191 Sunny River a .F.. W.L. 6 5 4 15 °72 Walter Scott, W.L. .. 4 5 6 15 233 DUCKS. L. P. James, I.R 0 6 0 6 12 H. H. Melville, I.R. .. 7 6 6 19 232 Mrs. E. Kelly, K.C. .. 7 7 7 21 321

H. A. Lucas, W.L.: 92, 79, 72, 84, 84, 81 (29). 492. „„„„„„ Ancona Stud P.F., W.L.: 84, 7o, S3. 39. 50. 59 (16). 394. Mrs. G. E. Sewell. W.L.t 41, 79. 31, 75 , 53, 83 (21), 362 S. G. Batten. W.L.: 61, 57, 67, 41. 40, 46 (22). 312. ,, „ C. L. W Urquhart, W.L.: 79, 42. 62, 46. 55, 20 (22), 304. „ „ „„ Cotswold P.F., W.L.: 39. 4S, 64. 62, 2, 38 (16). 253. J. T. Hazelwood, W.L.: 41, 52, 40. 21. 33, 62 (16). 249. M. Stenhenson, W.L.: 41. 31, Od, 64, -6, 62 (9), 224. Section D. L G. Hooper. B.O.: 84, 90. 77, 62, 100, 74 (22). 487 . ... W. A Larsen. A.O.: 88, 70, 81, 103. S3, -■> (29). 452. „ F A. Dewhurst, R.I.R.: 60. 72. 54. 70, 79, 79 (28). 420. ,, Austral P.F., B.O.: 71. 82, 79, 54. 5o, 40 (16). 381. . „ G. A Mitchell, B.O.: 84d, 30d. 63. 81, 43, 34 (14), 335. G. A. Edge. R.I.R.: 61, 82, 48, 45, 11. 42 (13). 289. Bliss Bros.. R.I R.: 0. 23. 45, 0, 0, <0 (o), 138. “d” Bird dead.