POULTRY

Manawatu Standard, Volume LII, Issue 204, 29 July 1932, Page 4

POULTRY

EGG-LAYING. MASSEY COLLEGE CONTEST. Tho following are tho results of tho sixteenth week in the Massey College egglaying contest:— SINGLE PENS.

NOTES. By “Brooder”

An experiment at V uilaceville poultry station is reported, and it is said that this, the first experiment in the use of oil in the rearing of chickens, disposes of, for the time being, the theory that oil tends to increase weight when used as a chicken rearer. In the experiment referred to, 162 chickens were divided and reared under exactly similar conditions regarding food; indeed, Ihey were reared under the same brooder, a division under the canopy keeping two lots entirely apart. A similar food ration wus given except that one section received daily a small allowance of oil. Knowing that it has been claimed many times that the use of oil tended to increase weight, careful records were kept, the total weight of the batches being recorded at the beginning of the test and at regular weekly intervals. At no time, it would appear, was there any marked difference in the weights of the two sections, the difference in the weights at tho end of tho test being barely noticeable. Furthermore,\ visitors, asked which was the better hatch from the point of general appearance, coukl not discern any marked difference between those fed with oil and those that were not. However, the above is not to be the last of similar experiments which th© station intends making. Certainly it does not prove that oil has no value. Knowing or expecting that almost ideal conditions aid chicken rearers at the station, it would be interesting to know if oil will make up for imperfections in the mod© of rearing and conditions generally. For instance, it is being claimed that where chickens are denied a maximum of sunlight, with its ultra-violet rays, growth is considerably retarded. Will oil entirely make up for this deficiency in the birds’ environment? It may or it may not. Later experiments are to be made and it is probable that poultrymen will have more valuable data to guide them in their endeavours to rear

really healthy chicks to really healthy birds. Meanwhile, get all the sunlight possible and there will be less need lor any expensive expedient. Pullets will and should lay if coaxed to eat liberally of a well balanced laying mash; there is something wrong with the birds if they do not. The hoppers should be open all day to them. To give an excess of grain will act against this; to give a full ration of wet mash will do the same. To get eggs in plenty one should seo a heavy, consumption of dry masly As the laying increases so should the consumption and, if a good dry mixture is used, not only good in formula, but good in quality, eggs will be forthcoming. The best way to judge the quality of a mash is to watch and see that the birds enjoy it. If they indifferently pick about it, the birds are either overfed or the mash does not appeal to them ; which of the two • i is should not be hard to discover. If it should lw that the birds do not care for the mixture, then change it and watch for results. Keep a draught away from the incubator, but be sure there is plenty of ventilation, says the Farmer, hectoring on poultry-keepers’ problems, an English expert declared that a great number of deaths in the incubator occurs during tire last four days. One of the principal causes, assuming that the breeding stock and methods of incubation are sound, is the poisonous gas which hangs about the corners of the incubator. After ten days the embryo chick begins to breathe, and in the machine which there is no movement of air. There is always a great danger of pockets of poison gas accumulating in the corners. Wafting a newspaper will disturb this air and should be done each day. Where only a small incubator is running. perhaps the trouble is not so real, but in a room where there are a number of machines, without plentv of ventilation, there is often real harm done because of the lack of ventilation.

Section A. W. H. Barker ... 1 34 2 40 3 56 E. M. Calvin ... 1 66* 2 BO G. 11. Cross ... 30 F. Ecob ... 1 84 2 62 3 78 A. It. Watson 83 O. Goodson ... 22* L. B. Mannsell ... ... 1 52 2 73 3 64 Mrs Stowart ... ... 1 49 2 57 3 72* S. G. Batten ... 1 72 R. It. Cannon ... 67 Miss Mitchell _ ... 1 64 2 65 3 74 4 55 5 80 6 83 T. B'ruco ... ... ... ' _ ... 1 47 2 73 3 24 A. J. Shailer _ ... ... 1 68 2 65 H. Rushton _ „ ~ _. i 64 2 67 3 68 4 65 S. G. Batten .. ... 2 51 3 84* 4 54 5 76 6 44 7 58 Section B. Mrs Hellaby ... 1 53 Mrs Youngson ... 63 Larson Bros. ... 1 91* 2 31 3 54 4 99* T. Douthwaito ... 41 E. M. Galvin ... 0* TEAMS. Section C.

F. Ecoh 79 75 76* 61 49 75 (30) 415 M. L. Boyco 66 59 63* 70 52 38 (19) 348 M. Macrae 18 53* 77 23* 65 49 (14) 285 Mrs Stewart 60 19 36 46* 29 58* (25) 248 P. Harrison 54 62 32 13 31 19 (26) 211 Section' 1). Mrs Hellaby McLcr.n & 40 85 64*52* 51 69 (19) 361 Whitworth 29 43* 70* 28* 61* 72 (22) 303 W. Bish 71 2* 17 37 57* 47 (11) 231 W. E. Jones 56 20 40 32* 17 57* (27) 222 Larsen Bros. 14 33 22* 34* 15* 20 (18) 138 ‘Signifies disqualified for egg weight clause.