POULTRY NOTES

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVI, Issue 182, 3 July 1936, Page 15

POULTRY NOTES

(By “Brooder.”)

Auckland now has its own egg marketing committee, and the trade generally in that city will he more or less controlled by it. Producers and agents are almost equally repre-

sented, and the prospect of closer co-opertion between these interests is fairly well established. Evidently the desire for a national scheme is, for Auckland, too slow of realisation, lienee a scheme which others may follow.

It is noticed that among the aims and objects of the Auckland committee is one that an effort will he made to secure more equitable prices for producers during the flush season; also, that an arrangement is. to be sought whereby none hut local eggs he used for local egg-pulp requirements, and that the necessary pulp be secured without the necessity of depressing local egg price, sj and a sub-committee to represent agents was appointed for the purpose of fixing the prices of eggs on the local market. It is the duty of this committee to receive from eacli agent, on

a given day each week, or as often as required, the total of each grade of eggs, held in tho various agents’ stores, together with reports on the manner in which each grade is selling. After taking all factors into consideration, the committee is to fix the price accordingly. Poultry producers (in places) are

now alive to the need for controlling their -own industry, and it will be interesting to watch the results. That there is need for co-operatiou none will deny.

' Recently fifty White Leghorns 5 owned by Mr E. Clark died suddenly, t says a Sydney journal. Two of them U were sent to the Australian Depart- ■ incut of Agriculture for examination, 1 and the result of analysis proved J that strychnine was the cause of their deaths. As the fowls had no * access to any poison on the farm, ’ it is considered that poisoned wheat 1 must have been thrown into the ’ i pens by someone. The police are in- !! vestigating the case. 1 I Prices for pullets in Australia are ■ I much below what one expects to pay '| in New Zealand. Leading breeders arc now advertising pullets at any- ’ thing from the low price of £5 per 1 hundred birds, .which is only the price of day-old chickens here. For the next month, or before 1 mating uji, all male birds should he given plenty of free range. There is nothing which will help to give the vitalising energy to those birds better than liberty to roam at will. Breeders who have not the space are well advised if they seek to farm out these birds with friends for a while before mating them up in small pens. Chou inoellier is claimed to be one of the best green feeds known to poultry-keepers. Says one, who uses iit extensively: “By picking the lower leaves only, the protection of tho I top leaves helps to Keep a luxuriant undergrowth evergreen and fresh. To any with limited ground I would advise growing chou moellier. Each plant gives a wonderfully plenteous growth to pick at.” | JUDGING REDS. A word on judging Reds (writes an Australian). At all the shows I have attended'tho largest and darkiest female Red has been awarded first in the standard class—fowls which in my opinion would not lay as many eggs as would pay for their feed. The Red is both a layer and I a table fowl, and I cannot understand why judges should forget that 'and give the “big loafer’ the first I prize. I well remember the present president of the R.I.R. Club taking to task a judge at a New South Wales Poultry Club show about 18 years ago for awarding first prize to a large pullet, yet I see that he did the very same thing at the Poultry Club Show last week —and in the utility class at that! So much for the females. Concerning the male, do tho judges forget that the absence of main tail feathers is a disqualification? If not, they certainly have forgotten to put it into practice—it is all right to have a long | back, hut in my opinion it is no use without tho main tail feathers. With regard to utility judging, give some of the judges a hit of type and dark feathers and it sums up all that they look for—egg quality is of no concern to them; they forget that the R.I.R. female is an egg-producer as well as a table fowl. This is the kind of criticism Australian judges meet with. The letter in part of a series of pointed remarks concerning judging of the Rhode Island class at a New South Wales show. Local Red fanciers will be interested.

EGG LAYING. MASSEY COLLEGE COMPETITION. The following arc the 14lh week's results of the sixth egg laying contest conducted at Massey Agricultural Coll6ge, Palmerston North. SINGLE PENS. SECTION A.

11. M. Smith, W.L 1 5 73 A. G. Munihy, W.L I 4 72 Miss Jl. Kocidcll, W.L. .. 2 4 69 A. G. Munihy, W.L 2 5 69 G. E. Moody, W.L 5 68 Rangiuru Egg Ranch. W.L. 3 4 68 Mrs G. A. Stratford, W.L. .. 5 64 Miss H. Kcddoll, W.L. 1 4 62 A. A. Hoare, W.T 2 4 56 A. G. Muinhv, W.L 4 5 56 ,1. Reilly, W.I 2 4 49 R. M. Smith, W.I 2 5 49 A. G. Muinhv, W.I 3 4 43 J. Rcillv, W.I 1 4 42 r A. K. Salisbury, W.L 1 4 41 C. L. W. Urquhart, W.L. ., 5 41r A. A. Hoare, W.L 1 2 40 Muss E. Ladd. W.L 1 40 A. E. Salisbury, W.L 3 0 35 J. A. Annan, W.L 4 34 Moreland Bros., W.L 2 33 M. Stephenson, W.L 2 32 Mrs B. B. Andrews, W.L. .. 6 30 Rangiuru Egg Ranch, W.L. 1 4 30 E. B. Wainscot t, W.L 4 27 J. Mold, W.L 3 21 Rangiurn Egg Ranch, W.L. 2 3 21 A. E. Salisbury, W.L 2 0 13 II. Poison, W.L 4 11 C. ]-I .Barker, W.L 2 5 8 F. IT. Paddy. Min 0 3r C. H. Barker, W.L SECTION" B. . 1 0 0 A. E. Salisbury, A.O 3 6 80 T. Dowthwaito, B.O 2 4 79 3 6 79 J. 11. Sutton, A.O 5 7b E. Seymour, B.O 5 75

Norman Ross. B.O. 5 74 R. Feist, R.I.R 2 6 72 John Walker, A.O 6 70 T. Dowthwaite, B.O 1 b 68 A. E. Salisbury, A.O 1 5 66 A. JO. Salisbury, A.O 2 6 48 W. A. Larson, A.O 0 59 R. Fcisl, R.I.R 1 4 88 R. M. Smith, B.O 2 87 Mrs Norman Rcss. A.O.' ... 6 35 O. A. Edge, R.T.R 5 28 J. D. Rowlands, R.T.R TEAMS RESULTS, 4 23

Seel ion C. (All W.L.i F. Ecob, No. 2— 55 43 19 60 59 47 (14)—283 C. L. W. .Urqnhart35 43 60 64 38 40 (17)—280 F. Ecob, No. 1— 58 35 73 23 28 52 (17)—269 E. B. Wuinscotl- - 57 33 2! 39 67 52 (15)—269 Arcvle Poultry I< 'aril i— 54 49 48 32 29 52 (141—264 J. Graham— 40 58 54 30 36 34 (191—252 S. G. Batten— 20 32 13 59 32 49 (12)—204 Cotswold Poultry Farm — 25 28 49 67 9 23 (111—201 s. D. Morris — 28 26 21 48 23 54 (8)—200 M. Stephenson— 10 61 38 17 33 18 (151—177 R. Forlong— 16d 14 18 48 49 18 (211—163 E. VV. Thompson- — 18 19 48 34 4r 19 (101—142 Penrose Poultry Farm— 33 28 4 32 8r 28 (141—133 D. M. Peek— 3 9 61 1 9 47 (2)—130 J. Wilson — 3 13 24 21 ' 38 29 (31—123 Mm G. E. Sowell23 30 41 21 12 0 (14)—127 J. T. Hazelwood — 25 17 3 13 16 44 (81—118 A. E. Salisbury— 32 28 19 0 C 37 ' (91—116

Miss H. Kcddell — 14 37 10 0 14 23 (71—98 II. Poison— 28 19 9 27 : 14 i 0 (4)—97 J. J. Faulkner— ' 34 30 6 8 6 11 (12) —95 A. J. Dudson — 16 26 1 11 15 8i r (8)—77 Mrs B. B. Andrews— 6 18 10 11 15 8r (16)—68 SECTION D. Mrs D. M. Waddell. B.O. 76 72 33 48 67 27 (27)—323 Cotswold Poidtrv Fern i. A.o. 70 41 75 37 66 17 (22)—306 J. B. Duthie. No. J. B.O '32 29 40 80 13 62 (18)—256 Luke Fletcher. B.O. 45 67 5r 17 60 48 (9) —242 J. B. Duthie. 1U.H, 41 57 44 14 9 75 (19)—240 F. A. Dcwhurst. R.I.R. 26 61 23 54 42 21 (20)—227 A. E. Salisbury, A.O. 45 71 43 32 6 : 13r (16)—210 W A. Larsen, A.O. 40 34 31 '7 44 27 (31)—183 A. Thomson, A.O. 68 30 14 10 36 23 (11)—181 Bliss Bros., U.I.K. 30 7 43 36 18 43 (24)—177 Mrs R. Wilier* B.O. 37 0 35 47 46 7 (—) —172 J. B. Duthie. No. '4. B.O. 40 29 43 5 39 15 (21)—171 'Y. Fletcher. A.O 7 27 32 10 33 27 (24)—136 T. J. Grose, B.O. 17 8 10 11 13 27 (10)—86 G. A. Edge, R.I.R. 0 12 33 1 18 8 5 (17)— 76 ‘ ‘r - ’ —Replacement. "d”—Bird dead.