POULTRY NOTES

Dominion, Volume 33, Issue 87, 6 January 1940, Page 18

POULTRY NOTES

Management And Health Of The Flock

A PRACTICAL MAN’S ADVICE

(By

New Laid.)

Most experienced poultry-farmers agree that the one factor above all others which decides the profit or loss in the poultry accounts is the health of the stock which, in its turn, depends to an enormous extent on the conditions under which flocks are kept. Probably no one thing causes more mortality from disease and accident than over-crowding, says Mr. Montgomery, an experienced poultry-farmer, writing in this connexion in “Poultry"’ (Eng.). Failure to provide enough space, he adds, may be due to ignorance or to bad management, and in the hope that others may be saved from mistakes he has made he gives some facts and figures which exj perience has taught him. Cannibalism, feather picking, an unsatisfactory eggyield and an apparently low resistance to disease, says Mr. Montgomery, are symptoms which point to overcrowding. Chickens squashed at night or at the food or water vessels are more obviou’a signs; and colds, which may develop into roup and give the flock a setback from

which the chicks will never wholly recover are, especially in summer, nearly always the result of overcrowding. Sometimes sufficient housing is provided but no care is taken to see that the stock make use of it; for instance, in a field of small houses the chicks are not watched at shutting-up time, and all crowd into one house. This ill adjustment can usually be avoided if the houses are properly grouped. Disease-Ridden Ground.

Overcrowding the land is as dangerous as overcrowding a house, and more difficult to recover from since a field, once disease-ridden, is hard to cure. The ground must be kept in good condition; and if it has become filthy or infected it is better to keep the stock intensively till it recovers than to let them out on it. If hoppers and water vessels are used outside they should be moved frequently. Where the fowls are not on free range the runs should be planned so that they are as square as possible. The ground at the far end of a long, narrow run is nearly always wasted because the fowls will not go up to it. In a semi-intensive house 3-4 square feet floor space a head should be allowed, and in an intensive one 445 square feet. The smaller the unit the higher the individual space required, while heavy breeds need -J square foot more than light breeds. For healthy .stock 10 cubic feet of air a head is necessary. The equipment must also be properly planned. Fowls crowded on ’the perches will certainly develop colds. The perches should be 12ins. from the walls and 14ins. from the front of the droppings-board where these are in use. Heavy breeds occupy 9ins. each and light breeds Tins. Extra perching space is needed for cocks. If there are partitions in the house the poultry-farmer must make sure that his fowls are evenly distributed. Insufficient nests mean broken eggs, egg-eating, and eggs laid on the floor, which usually entails collecting from under the droppingsboards. I allow one nest to every four hens and one to three when trapnesting. The whole question of ventilation is obviously bound up very closely with overcrowding. A badly ventilated house can exhibit most of the evils of overcrowding when it is half empty; e.g., a draught in one corner of a email house, or at one end of the perches, will drive the fowls into the opposite corner where they may crush each other. Functioning of the ventilation is most easily observed at night, when it is a simple matter to see, by the order in which the fowls are sit-

ting, whether they feel a draught. In addition to avoiding draughts, air in takes end outlets must be arranged So that the foul air is carried off. This is best tested iu the morning when letting the fowls out, and one's own reactions to the air in tlie house are a fairly safe guide. Ventilation in all types of poultry houses should be controllable so that it can be altered to suit weather conditions, as a change in wind may cause colds or suffocation.

Food and Water \ essels. Another danger of overcrowding occurs nt the food and water vessels. Bxtra chicks are frequently put into a flock without additional hopper space, or the extra water consumed in hot weather m not allowed for and the supply runs out. The result is that the fowls, especially youngsters, drown each other fighting for the water when it is given to them. M hen there is any danger of shortage a trough is safer than a bucket, and cans with drinking space all round than those with a narrow opening, because more chicks can get at them at one time. Dry-mash .hoppers must provide Itt. eating space per eight layers. It is impossible to give figures for chicks, because these alter so rapidly as they grow. I have found that the only safe thing to do is to watch the stock when they 'are feeding and make sure that all of them can get at the wet mash at the same time. If they cannot do this the smaller chicks are liable' to get no food. Grit hopper space need not be great; but I always give 61bs. oyster shell and grit per 10 fowls at a time, for if it has to be supplied oftener it is sometimes forgotten.

Feather-Pecking. Feather-peeking with its attendant cannibalism has been causing an unusual amount of trouble on Queensland poultry plants this season, and was the subject of special comment recently by the State poultry expert, Mr. P. Rumball. In view of the number of outbreaks of featherpecking which occur in New Zealand the Queensland expert’s experiences are of interest here. It was particularly difficult, Mr. Rumball stated, to find the cause of the trouble. The normal mill offal ration appeared to create the least tendency to feather-pecking, whilst tests of soaked wheat feeding had shown that method to be a prolific cause of the trouble; a trial of sorghum grain in the ration had proved less troublesome than soaked wheat, but certainly stimulated the tendency in a more marked manner than did mill offals. It might be possible that an outbreak was in some cases due to digestive disturbances caused by too highly nitrogenous a diet. It was sometimes felt that an absence of litter was responsible for the trouble, but it was found that on 77 farms where litter was plentifully used 34 per cent, suffered from peeking, and on 22 farms where no litter whatever was used 45 per cent, suffered; showing that both types were attacked and neither immune. It had been found that on those farms brooding their chicks in batches of 6001000, 100 per cent, (all) were afflicted with pecking; on those farms rearing in lots of 500. 50 per cent.; 400, 66 per cent.; 300, 60 per cent.; 100, 43 per cent. The excessive use of finely-ground meals might also create this condition and it was essential that roughage should _be available to provide bulk in the ration. Ground oats appeared to be a most valuable food in this connexion, and. fed as the sole cereal reduced cannibalism below that existing with a corn ration. Can(Continucd at foot of next column.)

nibalism had assumed such proportions in America at one time that metal guards were made to be fixed to the fowls to prevent the pecking of the vents, and eye shades which kept the birds’ vision solely at floor level; he had personally conducted many experiments with coloured lighting, but without good results.

Slow-Feathering Chickens. No doubt exists in my mind that the immediate cause of slow feathering m chicks to which heavy breeds are apparently most susceptible, from about four weeks old and, in some cases, to 16 to 20 weeks, is fumes from brooder stoves, or lack of fresh air under the brooder or hover, writes J. A. Watson in ’ Poultry” (Eng.). If we go a little further back we shall usually find that the breeding of poor-feathering chicks is faulty. The strange thing is it needs artificial methods of rearing to discover this fault. The chicks from some fowls, when hatched and reared by hens, feather perfectly, but have a large proportion of poorlyfeathered specimens amongst them when reared under stoves. My view is that it is the result of many types of weaknesses in the breeding stock, and such " chicks should be marked and not bred from.

Testing Feeds. , (Some tim'ple tests for feeds, which although they do not tell anything about the chemical analysis, give a strong indication regarding the quality and freedom from impurities, are given as follows by an English writer : — Pollard: Place a little on warmed white absorbent paper; a poor sample will leave an oily fe'tain; a good sample, only the slightest trace of a greasy mark. Maize-meal: Daanp a piece of blue litmus .paper and cover it with the maizemeal to be 'tested; if the maizemeal is stale or acid, the paper will turn bright red, and the sample should not be used. Wheatmeal: To test mix with a little water; a good sample will form into a sticky mass. . Bran: If a little heap is made of this and the finger is plunged into it, a considerable amount of floury particles wi.J stick to the skin, if the bran is a firstclass sample; when worked between the finger and thumb bran should feel soft and smooth, never woody or crisp. Middlings: A good sample contains a proportion of flour, small particles of bran and some of the germ of the gram. It will be soft and pale in colour, and if placed on absorbent paper and warmed, a slight greasiness should be left as a stain on the paper. A good-quality sample will feel soft and silky to the touch, and will he sweet to the taste. A bad sample is told by its husk content, its darkness of colour and its appearance of being of the nature of sawdust. It will be dusty, too, and, if stale, mustiness will be smelt. A first-class sample of lucerne meal should be ’ green in colour and contain only a small proportion of leaf-stalk. IFish-meal should be bought on its analysis. The colour should be yellow-ish-brown, and the meal finely ground, with practically no oil content. Meat-meal should contain no hair and very little hone. Smell gives the best guide to its worth, and if it comes to the nostrils sweet, the material can be taken as in good condition, provided its analysis is satisfactory.