POULTRY NOTES

Dominion, Volume 33, Issue 283, 24 August 1940, Page 17

POULTRY NOTES

Artificial And Natural Hatching QUALITY OF STOCK PRODUCED

(By

New Laid.)

A small poultry keeper asks whether chickens hatched under hens are superior in any respect to chickens hatched in an incubator. The answer, broadly speaking, is that chicks hatched in an incubator by an experienced, painstaking operator, who chooses his eggs carefully, are quite equal to naturally hatched chickens. The modern incubator has been brought to a high state of efficiency and if it has a fault, it is that it can be too efficient and will produce a chicken from an egg 'that would not survive the hatching period under a hen —I have in mind a thin-shelled egg . which would probably perpetuate a family of layers of thin shelled eggs. Such an egg might easily produce a chicken in an incubator, but under a hen it would almost certainly be broken before hatching day. The commercial breeder, who has a reputation for the quality of his stock to maintain, takes particular care to see that no egg that is not of standard size and perfect shell quality is incubated. These are among the qualities that distinguish his particular strain, and they must be maintained, just as stamina and productive capacity have to be maintained. This question was referred to recently hy the Scientific Poultry Breeders’ AsKoeiation. the position being put as follows hy Mr. T. Newman, one of the leaders of the organization : —“Many people have read so much about natural hatching and the advantages that accrue from ‘keeping close to nature,’ that they are a little bit confuse?! about the respective merits of chicks naurally or artificially hatched. One individual, we note, is asking a considerable higher price for bis naturally-hatched chicks just because they are naturally hatched. This sort of thing certainly puts the question: ‘ls the vitality of the chicks impaired by artificial incubation, and if so, when is the mischief done and how can we remedy it?’ Some time ago. the question was investigated at the Cornell University. The object was to ascertain whether artificial incubation tended to lower vitality and production, and the details of the workare of especial interest. “For three years experiments were conducted. At the end of the first year’s experiments, it was found that the pullets which were hutched by hens laid 162 eggs: pullets artificially hatched, Ilk. The results of the second year were: hen-hatched. 123 eggs: artificially hatched. 121. ' , , , The chicks that were reared from the hen-hatched and artificially-hatched stock laid as follows: The progeny trom the hen-hatched laid 130.9. while those from the incubator-hatched laid 136.— The inettbator-hatched stock carried through for the third generation have given, thus far, five more eggs per hen, than those which were hen-hatched; but taking tlie three flocks of fowls, hen and pullets together, the net average is in favour of the lien-hatched, 139 as against 133 This is not sufficient to warrant any definite conclusion, one way or the other. We have to remember the experiments were carried out under the best possible conditions, with the best type of incubators in the hands of skilled operators. We have to deal with the average incubator, the average operator And the average conditions. If these are carefully studied we shall find that there is a wider difference between the naturally and artificially-hatched chicks. Much mischief is done in the brooder ; but the very largo proportion of chicks . commence their career with their vltal lowered by the conditions under which thev are hatched. , . In the first stages ot incubation we speak of “dead germs.’’ These we may Cll (l) Those which do not develop; ami these losses can bo traced to (a) stale pci’s and (1>) to the stock. °"(2) Those which (lie about the tenth day; an indication of some weakness in the stock and not actulilly the fault ot artificial incubation. You might consider the question ot artificial incubation as a factor when dealing with what we will term dead in shell,” that is, the chicks- which either pip the shell or are near to doing. In the greater number ot cases it will be found that these chicks die from oxygen starvation in what is called the nursery drawer as the result of lack of incoming oxygen to compensate for the carbondioxide which they exhale. In a good, well-hatched lot of clucks we think that the average hatch will at least equn] in number the percentage which wo should get from the hen and he quality of the chick will be equally good, and that any defect which nay arise in them will proceed, probably, fiom the brooder or is created during the 1 I ' U We muo’t, however, consider the question of incubator ventilation, and its relation to the badly-hatched chick. It is not enough to follow the instructions of the manufacturers of the machine. In y can only give general pmmples as guidance. In the main they are right, but not applicable to all places. were in the Thames Valley we had some ruinous hatches in a bot "If 0111 "®’ which worked very satisfactorily at Rud-wiek. In the valley we were on the river; at Rudgwick our situation was a hil To OP sum up, then, this question of artificial as against natural We have all had good and bad hatenes in an incubator, aud the same luck under hens Too many machines m a loom may exhaust the ’ ogygen which is necessary for the development of the emb’yo. Too low a room temperature results in X batches of small ehicks A warm air carries more moisture. Too hl „h temperature results in Premature hatching. Too much moisture results m the chicks being “drowned,’’ or, to be, more correct, it is often too big to turn m the shell. Many chicks are lost because of too much under-draught. . What it if> up to us to do is to watch the specific conditions which are individual to ourselves. We have studied farms on which large numbers of chicks are naturally hatched, and have been disappointed with the results, both in the numbers' of chicks and the fact that, although reared under hens in the open field, they quickly succumb to coccidiosis. Wo believe that chicks hatched in an incubator from fresh eggs, are every bit as good as those hatched naturally.

Leg Weakness in Chickens. Leg weakness in chickens is more or less similar to rickets in children. Rickets can bo countered by bathing in direct sunlight, artificial sunlight, or by adding vitamin D to the food; usually in the form "of cod liver oil. The same is true of chickens. If they are allowed out into the open, provided the.soil is absolutely clean and free frojn .disease germs, or if the brooder house is fitted with special rnv-passing glass, or glass substitute. there should be no signs of leg weakness. Failing any of the measures mentioned, the addition of 2 per cent, of a certified cod liver oil to the chicks’ mash will provide the necessary vitamin D. Thin percantage is, roughly speaking, loz. of the oil to every 31b. of mash weighed in its dry state. Common Brooder House Errors. (>n many farms the brooder house consists of a large barn-like place in which no effective measures have been taken to in-event draughts, and the result is that. rearing results are extremely variable. If the weather is genial, all may go well, but if it is not. troubles arise from chilling, congestion of the lungs, •ami other ailments. On the other hand, says L. Robinson in "Eggs,” some brooder houses are excessively warm and stuffy, and the chicks grow up like hothouse plants, only to contract chill or disease when they are placed outside. The chicks themselves generate a considerable amount of heat, and will raise llm temperature several degrees shortly after they have settled down for the night. In the morning, however, they begin to run about, usually before the brooder house is visited, and it is not un-

usual to find, when inspecting them first thing in the morning, a few o£ the chicks endeavouring to get themselves warm in a temperature of 65deg. to 70deg. heedless to say, they arc unsuccesstul. Lhe low temperature in the early hours 01. the morning is a common, though frequently unsuspected, cause of mortality. The remedy lies in providing more heat than the chicks require, so that there is a margin of safety, but if this is done it must be seen that the chicks can move well away from the source of heat should they feel too warm. Plus raises the problem of hover guards. Everyone is rightly advised to surround the hover with "a guard for the first week or thereabouts, to prevent the chicks straying and as a safeguard against draughts. In many cases, however, the guards are placed too close to the brooder, which has the effect of boxing in tbo chicks, so that they cannot move to a lower temperature should they get too warm. These guards should be placed at leas Gin. from the edge of the brooder and it is a good plan to make them Pe-V shaped so that on one side slthe chicks may move a considerable distance away should they desire. It is noticeable that when a lamp is taken into a brooder house at night many of the chicks will go toward the food troughs and commence eating. I rom this it is often concluded, that during thshort winter days it will be an advantage to use artificial light in the brooder house to increase food consumption. J.he use of artificial light actually wi l increase food consumption, but controlled expen ments have demonstrated that this increase is ineffective in obtaining more rapid growth during the first seven weeks of a chick’s life. Experience has shown that there is no advantage m using artificial light at this early stage The chicks make better growth without it. After seven weeks of age there is a definite advantage in rate of growth, but even so it is not desirable for pullet production that growth rate should be stimulated in this way. In view of the tact that so many diseases of chicks are brought . about through the food and water, special care should be taken to see that drinkers and troughs cannot be fouled. For the first, few 'feeds, the majority of poultrykcepers will agree that pieces of cardhoard, stout brown paper, or plain boards are preferable to troughs. The two former can be destroyed after use, since their eost is negligible, while the latter can be effectively and quickly cleaned. There is do need to use food hoppers of the usual design until the chicks are strong on the leg, and at this stage stops must be taken to prevent their fouling the mash. Later, of course, the hoppers should be raised from the floor as the chicks grow. Similarly with the drinkers. After a day or two the ehicks will soon scratch litter into the water, and in order to overcome this very real menace to their health, the drinking vessels should be raised from the floor.

Egg-Eeating Hens. One of the most annoying occurrences in the poultry yard is for hens to be found eating eggs. All sorts of methods are advocated for preventing this vice, including the placing of pepper, mustard, and other things in an egg, but there is only one effective preventive according to Jas. Hadlington, and that is to catch the ■bird responsible for the trouble and eliminate her from the flock. On tendering this advice one is usually met with the assertion that all, or nearly all, the hens will eat eggs if opportunity occurs. The result is that there is undue worry and anxiety to keep the eggs picked up from the nests as they are laid. All this is unnecessary. _ When an egg is broken all hens will join in the feast, but fortunately, very few hens learn actually to break eggs, and those that do are the cause of all the trouble. Nevertheless, the losses sustained by this vice may be considerable. It should be understood at the outset that even one hen that learns to break eggs can prove very destructive, but little alarm need be felt concerning the eating of a broken egg by the fowls generally. To catch the "culprit, place an egg where it can be seen ; sometimes out in the open yard will suffice. Watch for the hen that comes right up and dives her beak into it,’ eliminate her, and perhaps, in some cases a second one, aud the trouble will cease.

EGG-LAYING CONTEST

Massey College Results a The results to the end of the twentieth week of the egg-laying contest being conducted at Massey Agricultural College are: — SINGLE PENS. Section A.—J. A. Annan, W.L. (5), 101; S. D. Morris, W.L., No. 1 (5), 98; A. G. Mumby, W.L., No. -1 (7), 96; F. P. Longbottom, W.L. (5), 95; A. J. Sliailer, W.L., No. 1 (5), 95; A. G. Mumby, W.L., No. 1 (5), 94: G. Clark, W.L., No. 2 (6), 90; B. E. Wilkinson, W.L., No. 1 (5), 88; Argyle P.F., W.L. (5), 85: H. A. Lucas, W.L., No. 1 (5), 85; R. E. Boyd, W.L. (4), 83; B. E. Wilkinson, W.L., No. 2 (5), Til; G. Clark, W.L., No. 1 (3), 63; S. D. Morris, W.L., No. 2 (5), 52; H. A. Lucas, W.L., No. 2, 50d; A. J .-Shailer, W.L., No. 2 (0), 47; A. G. Mumby, W..L., No. 3 (4), 39; A. A. Hoare, W.L. (0), 38; B. Pimm, W.L. (4), 33: A. G. Mumby. W..L., No. 2 (0), 22. Section B.—Mrs. R. Willers, A. 0., No. 1 (4). 100- W. A. Larsen, A. 0., No. 1 (6), 96; F. Moughan, A.O. (4), 92; S. Street, R.1.R., No. 2 (5), 85; K. Mullins, R.I.R. (3), 83’ W. A. Larsen, A. 0., No. 2 (6), 78; L. Mason, R.1.R., No. 2 (6), 76; Mrs. R. Willers. A. 0., No. 2 (6), 70; E. O. Collier, Lang. (0). 66; B. Pimm, A.O. (5), 65; L. Mason, R.1.R., No. 1 (5), 50; S. Street. R.1.R., No. 1 (6), 54; J. D. Wealleans, A.O. (4), 48: A. A. Hoare, R.I.R. (3), 40; T. B. Holdaway, R.I.R. (0), 29; P. Mummery, R.I.R. (4), 29. TEAMS’ RESULTS. Section C. J. Wilson. W.L.: 80, 90, 90, 110, 108, 115, 108 (40), 701. „„ _ B E. Wilkinson, W.L.: 93, 96, 98, 61, 97, 63, 25 (29), 533. W. F. Stent, W.L.: 61. S, 93, 104, 56, 52, 64 (31), 438. Section D. W. A Larsen, A. 0.: 112, 112, 83, 91, 78, 94, 62 (36), 632. .1. D. Wealloans, A. 0.: 25, 76, 58, 22, 66, 112, 97 (26), 456. E. W. Stephenson, A. 0.: 51, 54, 45, 45, 24, 73, 90 (25), 352.