FARMS AND FARMERS

Greymouth Evening Star, 7 November 1933, Page 3

FARMS AND FARMERS

ITEMS OF INTEREST

(By

“Rouseabout”)

THE POULTRYMAN.

WHEN DISEASE BREAKS OUT.

The following extracts are from a paper given at the Harper Adams Conference by Mr Tom Newman: — We have traced exceptionally heavy losses to the fact that the incubator house, was badly ventilated, that there was an excessive number of incubators in the house burning up too much oxygen, or that the incubator itself was badly ventilated. I do not think it is realised, by the vast majority of poultry farmers the enormous losses which are caused in this manner. Upon one farm which I visited this year the chicks were kept in the incubator for hours after they were hatched- On Questioning the breeder I found that the glass front of the incubator was covered with moisture, the chicks were panting, and when removed from the machine were damp. On this fgrm there were over 10,000 chicks. The losses had been enormous; they commenced about the fifth day, and the laboratories had not been able to determine the cause of death. There wa s no sign of bacterial or parasitical infection. What I want to emphasise is, that even those chicks which survived would he weakly and would not be likely to develop into healthy maturity. We know large numbers of weakly chicks are hatched from stale eggs placed in incubators. The same remark applies to the brooders- In a very largo number of cases the litter under the brood' is damp. Almost invariably this arises from lack of oxygen and an excess of carbondioxide rather than by too high a temperature or dny other cause. It is also not realised how frequently chicks which are reared under these conditions develop diarrhoea, which, in 90 per cent, of the cases, is attributed to the food. The chick mortality which is occasioned by the bad methods of brooding cannot very well be over-estimated. The intensive system is condemned because attempts are made to rear chicks in houses wholly unsuited for the purpose, whereas, 10 years’ experience has taught us that we can rear perfectly healthy chicks which will face any . conditions; but the necessity of sunshine seems to be wholly unrealised by a very large number of those who arc poultry farming at the present day. We must realise that there are far too many inferior hovers and inferior incubators upon the market, and, let me add, that brooderhouses are often so badly constructed that it is inevitable the mortality among the chicks must be very high. They are very draughty. They do not admit enough light. There arc great losses from the floor draught. Most of the troubles’from intestinal parasites from which chicks sillier, are due to the fact that they are running ever foul ground. Scores of breeders on smaller farms of live, ten or twelve acres, where continuous rearing for years* has rendered the ground foul, say they can no longer rear their chicks. Can there be any greater source of disease than that foul spot which is so often seen in front of the large laying houses on the commercial egg farms, where the birds huddle in the sunshine and drink from the puddle fouled by their own excrement?

To run 400 birds to an acre continuously, and rear chicks year after year in larger numbers than this on the same ground, is bound to end in disaster. Many of the complaints' as to stock purchase are that they are lacking in size. Here is an example:—Eight Rhode Island Reds and a cockerel were purchased for £2O from a breeder who has met with great success in laying tests. On arrival two had curved breast bones, one weighed 3Jib, three weighed 41b, two weighed 51b, and two 511 b. It would be impossible to breed healthy and vigorous stock from such a pen as this. It is not only a question of body size: there is also the problem of the eggs laid by many of these high-record birds. Too many of them are thinshelled and badly shaped, and a thinshelled egg will always give you a weakly chick, if it gives you a chick at all. It is a breeders’ problem. If more attention were paid to it there would be less loss from disease of the reproductive organs. I would like to place some emphasis upon the grave mistake which is made of breeding from a very precocious cockerel, which is usually undersized and which will frequently breed very bad stock towards the end of the season.

I am sorry to have to say it, but it is a fact that some breeders- have such a demand for their stock and eggs, owing to their success in laying tests, that they mate up immature pullets, with the result that there arc very serious complaints as to bad hatching and rearing. All this plays an important part in the fight with disease.

There is one other point, and that is this question of mass production. We cannot disguise ourselves that this becomes a most serious danger when it is on such a vast scale as to be out of control of tho individual who is running the hatchcry. There is too much evidence of this, and complaints of the quality of the chicks and the stock which are sent out are continuous.

LUCERNE CULTURE

Recently an unsatisfactory strike of lucerne inoculated with a six-year-old culture has demonstrated the necessity of using fresh cultures when establishing new stands (states the New Zealand Journal of Agriculture). A satisfactory culture should contain a maximum number of bacteria capable of forming nodules. It is known that bacterial cultures decrease in viability cn artificial media; and it is also known that these bacteria, stored on such a medium lose their power of in-‘ footing the host. It is evident that old cultures must be greatly weak-j ened both in numbers and their ability to form nodules. In the rnycoIcgical laboratory of the Plant Research Station at Palmerston North it is the practice to restrict to a minimum the period under artificial conditions; the period from isolation from selected nodules to inoculation of the seed rarely exceeds three weeks. By these precautions the farmer is assured that the cultures supplied by the Department of Agriculture will give a maximum inoculation of tho crop.

FEED FOR MILK!

BUT NOT FOR FAT.

FARM WORKERS’ WAGES.

BRITAIN’S LOW RATES.

A new campaign to raise agricultural wages in counties where the rates fixed are exceptionally low is to be started by the National Union of Agricultural Workers, which ha s enrolled 2,000 new members in the past three months. The campaign will open in Devon with an attempt to raise the wages of women farm workers from 5d to Gd per hour. But probably the spearhead of the campaign will be in Suffolk, where the wages of men on the farms were fixed' at 28/- per week in 1931. Only one other county—Oxfordshire ■—pays as low a wage as this, and in the three surrounding counties of Norfolk, Cambridgeshire and Essex 30/- is paid. The men’s representatives will point out that Suffolk farmers have been helped by the wheat quota, and by the fact that increased brewing has caused a very considerable advance in the price of malting barley —a most important crop in Suffolk. Although the dry weather has reduced the tonnage of sugar beet, it has increased the sugar content of the roots, and this is another crop which receives State assitance and does well in the county.

Medical Officer’s View:—An additional reason for renewing the application for an increased wage is the recent report of the Medical Officer of Health for West Suffolk, in which he said there were many families in the county “who have the greatest difficulty in making both ends meet- To the impartial observer it is evident that the margin of safety, it margin there be, must be an extremely limited’ one.” The date for announcing the decision for wages in Suffolk is at the end of December, but the preliminary meetings of the Wages Committee will begin next month. The Wages Committee is composed of representatives of employers and employees in equal numbers, with an independent chairman and independent members. There is a Wages Committee for each county, who submit their decisions to a central wages board. Either side may appeal against the finding of the county committee, jn which case the Minister of Agriculture may request the Wages Committee to sit again.

Appeal was made by the employees in 1931, when wages were first reduced to '2B/-. The committee sat again, at the request of Dr. Addison, then Minister of Agriculture, but the rate originally decided upon was not altered.

You can feed a cow so as to obtain more milk, but not so as to raise the percentage of butter in the milk. Such, at any rate, is the import of the following advice from London concerning experiments in Ireland: — As average milk yields have been so much increased of late years, largely as a result of more scientific methods of feeding, it is but natural that farmers should seek to discover some means of feeding which will bring about a corresponding increase in the fat percentage. But, except where cows were previously underfed on inadequate foods, the results have commonly been disappointing. The question of the effect of food on the fat content of milk has received a good deal of attention all over the world, and has lately been under investigation in the Irish Free State. As past results were held to have been conflicting, and because there were differences of opinion—though most authorities hold that “feeding cannot affect the richness of the milk in fat”—experiments were conducted ovei- a period of four years, five cows being experimented with throughout, but different cows each year, and each cow fed and recorded separately. Various precautions were taken to make the results dependable, and a good many feeding stuffs were used and comparisons made. With one exception there was a complete absence of any casual relation between the feeding stuffs and the fat content of the milk produced. The exception was cod-liver oil, its effect being the opposite of what was desired. When given at the rate of 6oz a day, the oil had a depressingeffect, not only while it was being given but for several days after.

Out of 85 cases of oil feedings: an apparently positive result appeared only in eight, and in none of these did more than two out of the five cows involved respond by an increased butter fat percentage; and “in no case was it possible to get a repetition of the effect on the individual cow in which it occurred-”

NO EFFECT IN RICHNESS

These exceptions are held to be merely fortuitous, being attributable to other causes than the feeding. Olive

oil, linseed oil, cottonseed oil, coconut oil, ground-nut oil, palm-nut oil, soyabean oil, and beef fat—all these had no quantitative effect on the richness of tho milk in fat; and palm-nut cake, linseed cake, and cotton cake were similarly without result. Clearly a. dairy cow needs but a small amount of oil in her ration to enable her to yield her maximum in milk and butter fat. Grazing at good pasture, or on ordinary, indoor diet of hay, roots, cereals, and non-oily protein concentrate will suffice. There may sometimes be a. lag in the butter fat percentage when, as a result of change of feeding—as from indoor conditions to spring pasture, or from autumn grass to indoor feeding—the milk yield is raised or diminished in quantity. For a sort time the fat percentage may be affected, but it is temporary. Further, neither the quantity of water taken nor the i succulence of the food has any effect on the lai, percentage. It was also concluded that “the plane of feeding,” i.e., generous rationing or otherwise, is without effect on fat content. I, though there may, of course, be a jchange in the quantity of milk given. which in turn means a greater or less 'total quantity of fat.