POULTRY NOTES.

Otago Witness, Issue 3773, 6 July 1926, Page 57

POULTRY NOTES.

BY

TERROR.

“Correct Weight.”—This correspondent asks which is the best method to adopt in weighing a fowl. There are various means adopted, but I think the best is to put the fowl into a basket of which the weight is known, and can, of course, be deducted when 'taken off the scales. A fancier of my acquaintance, who handles his birds -pretty frequently, simply places the bird’s head under its wing, swings the bird around two or three times (producing, I suppose, a state of giddiness), and then quietly places it on the scales. It remains quite still whilst the weights are adjusted. Other fanciers simply tie the bird's legs together and hang it head downwards to spring balances, but I don’t think the bird appreciates this method very much. The Taieri Show, recently held, was a great success, as it generally is, due no doubt to the enthusiasm of the executive appointed from year to year. The judging appears to have giVen satisfaction, and the quality of the birds was, if anything, an improvement on last year. Local exhibitors should pay more attention to the preparation of their birds for show. By doing so they would have a better chance against those entered by outsiders. The schedule of the Invercargill Show, to be held on the 13th and 14th of this month, gives a very attractive list of specials to be co -peted for in all sections, and the championships allotted by the South Island Poultry, Pigeon, and C Association—viz.: White Plymouth Rock and Polish (open poultry), whito Wyandottes (utility), bantams (other than game rosecomb, Peking, Sebrights, and Polish), pigeons (Nun), cage birds (best British bird other than goldfish)—should attract good entries. Empire Eggs.—According to the Daily Express (England), more than 30,000,000 eggs reached England from South Africa during the last quarter of 1925 in “New laid” condition. Type.—Readers may Have noticed a paragraph on the subject of type which appeared two or three weeks back. It opened with an acknowledgment to a correspondent that I had seen certain correspondence on the subject in a Home paper, but I thought it “silly.” I am now asked why I thought the correspondence “silly.” A Mr Scott, having expressed an opinion as to what constituted type, has angered several persons who hold different opinions to him, and to one another, by using rather abusive terms in his letters; hence loss of temper on all sides, and consequently the term “silly” used by myself. I may, however, now explain that I consider Mr Scott right in his contention. He says “Let me tell the whole of my blundering critics what type in every breed means. It means all the 100 points of the standard. A typical specimen is a specimen that scores 100 points. .If it scores 90 points it is 10 points removed from the perfect type. And it matters not one jot the points in which it fails are connected with shape, colour, size, condition, or anything else. Type should never be used in any standard except in relation to the whole of the characteristics of the breqd or variety. It is the use of the word * type ’ where * shape * is meant that causes the confusion. ’ Mr Scott’s definition is identical to mv own. given when I last referred to the subject. The New Zealand utility standard mentions, in all the breeds it deals with, “type and shape,” as though type only had to do with shape. A bird to be really typical of the breed it is supposed to represent must be typical at every point. Put a Langshan comb or feathered legs on a Minorca or Leghorn, and let them score ever so highly at all other points, yet they fail in type, and should be passed by a judge. As Mr Scott says, “type should never be used in any standard except in relation to the whole oi the characteristics of the breed or variety.” Another writer says: “If all birds were perfect to their respective standards, the word 'type* could be eliminated and the points divided between the remaining specifications. Awarding points for type would then be superfluous.” (1) What number of Leghorn fowls would a person require to keep in order to make a living by raising eggs—one man to do all the workT (2) How much land

would be needed, and tile extent and cost of buildings and runs?” These two questions, amongst others, were asked “Hardshell” (Adelaide Observer), and his answers were: “(1) 1000 (one thousand). (2) From two and a-half to three acres. The capital required would be from £BOO to £IOOO, although that expenditure would not all bo incurred at once.” . Ignorance of fundamental principles means failure. There is a poultrynian in the Old Country, one Captain G. C. Heseltine, who, whatever the subject he writes about, is always interesting and convincing. In an article in the Poultry World, in which he deals with the subject “Science and Practice,” he points out “the danger of being too progressive.” He says that the class of poultrykeepers to which this applies will start a plant for a thousand or more head of stock, with large brooder systems, mammoth incubators, artificial sunlight, new breeds of fowls, expensive proprietary foods with superabundant vitamins, violet rays, and heaven knows what paraphernalia! When chickens die in hundreds, pullets will not lay, or disease breaks out, they cannot understand it. Haven’t they followed the latest ideas exactly and spared no expense to get the best of everything? Then they blame the breeder from whom they bought the stock. They have read some pseudo-scientific cant about inherited weakness or inherited disease, and, though they do not fully understand it, it is quite natural that such an explanation of their failure should appear reasonable to them. Another alternative explanation of their failure which may appear to the more generous minded is that an unkind fate has smitten the flock with one of the new-fangled, unpronounceable diseases. Then they put down the whole trouble to bad luck, and probably give up in despair. The true explanation usually lies in the fact that in their zeal for progressive methods they have failed because of their ignorance of the fundamental principles of chicken rearing. It may seem incredible, but it is unfortunately and painfully true, that these enthusiasts will provide their chicks with wonderful stoves, special litter, and automatic exercises, vitamins galore, and yet give them an insufficient supply of clean drinking water. The wisest course for anyone embarking on poultry farming, whether for a livelihood or a hobby, paying or otherwise, is to get a good grounding in hatching, rearing, and keeping fowls in the old-fashioned way. Once the fundamental principles are mastered in this way, he can go ahead with modern developments with a fair chance of extracting himself from any hole into which he may fall where angels would have feared to tread.” Captain Heseltine is an experienced poultryman talking sound common sense in the foregoing. In all professions or industries there is the novice stage to pass through, and poultrykeeping is no exception. The small flock for the novice: when he can keep that successfully—i.e., with pleasure and profit—he has learned the fundamental principles. He will mix his mash with right constituents and to a proper consistency; the water tin will never be found turned over by the fowls in trying to get what little moisture there may be at the bottom of it; the nests will be in secluded spots and be free of vermin; the dust bath and grit box will always be available to the fowls, and the dropping boards regularly cleared. The fowls, whilst fed plenty, will always be ready for their next meal. He or she will have learned that hungry birds are healthy birds. Whence come B.W.D. and coccidiosis? Mr C. A. House, editor of the Poultry World (England), in writing on this question, says: “Exhibition fanciers know them not.” I cull the from his article: “What did the old fanciers do? Talking with a utility man quite recently about these diseases, lie said to me: 'What did the old fanciers do? Were they not troubled in like manner? ’ When I replied that the old fanciers did nothing because they never had occasion to uo so, my friend thought I was playing with the truth. It is quite possible that occasionally coccidiosis may have made its appearance in the runs of our exhibition fanciers, but it could not obtain a foothold owing to the care exercised in the breeding and management, a-d the* resistant power of the stock. Our exhibition fanciers are so careful in the treatment of their birds that they are seldom troubled with disease of any kind. Many men there are, known to myself, who have been breeding poultry for 30, 40, aye, 50 years, and whose knowledge of doctoring does not go beyond a common cold. The reason why is because, knowing prevention is better than cure, they always keep their stock under perfectly sanitary conditions. On the contrary, on many of our commercial r* try farms we find most deplorable conditions prevailing. Some of these fa.ms, with anything from 1000 to 5000 birds, have not so much house space, nor so much land, as some of our fanciers with only 100 to 500 birds. The latter knows little about disease, the former knows a great deal. Why? Because he outrages Nature by keeping his birds in bad conditions.” A good remedy for colds in poultry is camphor, which is a preventive as well as a cure. It' may be placed in the drinking water. Wrap a camphor tablet together with a small stone in a piece of flannel. The stone will prevent the camphor from floating. This remedy should not be given to laying hens, as the eggs may acquire a taste of camphor. Hens on Pasture. —Hens are not usually looked upon as pasture animals, and as a matter of fact on many farms the hens are fenced away from good pasture. Successful poultrykeepers find that a liberal supply of green feed increases egg production and helps to keep the flock in health. A heavy laying hen will not last long unless the bowels are kept in a laxative condition. Most poultrykeepers find greenstuff more practical than drugs in keeping the digestive tract in proper condition. Green feed also adds necessary bulk to the ration, and apparently assists m the assimilation of minerals. Hens running on a good range will usually lay eggs with better shell than hens kept in yards. The additional exercise is undoubtedly of benefit, but some forms of greenstuff seem especially helpful in forming good eggshells. Reillya report a very good yarding of poultry for their sale on Wednesday. They penned 138 hens, 53 pullets, 90 cockerels, 6 ducks, 5 geese, and 2 bantams, which sold

as follows:—Hens: 22 at Bs, 13 at 7s 4d, 41 at 7s, 12 at 6s Bd, 46 at 6s, 2 at 5s Bd, 2 at 5s 6d. Pullets: 16 at 13s 6d, 37 at 13s. Cockerels: 12 at 12s, 8 at 10s, 15 at 9s, 13 at 8s Bd, 22 at Bs, 18 at 7s 10d, 2 at 6s 4d. Ducks: 2 at 8s 2d, 4 at Bs. Geese: 5 at 7s. Bantams: 2 at 2s lOd—all at per pair. During /the week we have had inquiries for and been able to place some nice breeding pens of stud poultry. Breeding pens of Orpingtons, 10s to 21s; White Leghorns and Brown Leghorns, 15s; Light Sussex, 17s 6d; Rhode Island Reds, 15s to 21s; Houdans, 30s; Black Hamburg bantams, 12s 6d each; Indian Runner ducks, 12s 6d; Peking ducks, 128 6d to 21s; and Toulouse geese, 15s each. Eggs: Early in the week we were able to place our new-laid, stamped, and guaranteed at 2s 6d, and as supplies increased we had to fall into line with other firms and accept the market prices ruling, 2s 2d to 2s 3d per dozen, preserved eggs realising Is 9d. 22nd PAPANUI EGG LAYING COMPETITION.

A poll of Woodville county ratepayers resulted in an overwhelming majority for proposals to raise loans of £6OOO for machinery and £SOOO to complete the tarsealing of the main road, and authority to lcv3' a bridge rate (reports the Examiner). The polling was small, and the figures were 168 for and 17 against the road loan and the bridge rite, and 167 for and 19 against the machinery loan.

Leading Pens 11th Week ended June 19 (77 days). FLOCK TEAMS CONTEST (six birds). —Light and Heavy Breeds.— Week's White Leghorns— Eggs. oz. drs. Total W. E. Ward .. .. 29 56.1 • M. C. Craig .. .. 33 66.0 332 F. Haw‘s .. .. 25 49.7 321 H. C. We6t .. .. 25 52,3 312 J. Liggins .. .. 30 61.15 368 Calder Bros 23 46.1 303 Heavy Breeds— P. Bailey, R.I.R. 29 54.3 313 C. Bennett. W.W. 13 26.3 289 SINGLE HEN OPEN CHAMPIONSHIP. (For Light and Heavy Breeds.) Week’s Weight White Leghorns— Eggs. oz. drs. ToUI. Green Bros 7 15.0 67 Miss M White .. 6 12.8 66 N. Harrison .. 6 12.10 63 A. G. F. Boss .. 5 9.12 59 F. Hawes .. .. 5 10.7 58 Shelly and M'Elwain 5 9.8 58 Heavy Breeds— J. Kingsland .. 6 11.11 64 WHITE LEGHORN SINGLE HEN CONTEST. (Owner enters three birds.) Week’s EggsTotal W. J. Richards, No. 1 6 66 E. Crouch, No. 3 .. .. 6 63 G. and F. E. Biltcliff, No. 3 6 63 H. C. West, No. 1 6 63 E Crouch, No. 1 .. .. 6 63 Miss M. White, No. 3 5 82 A. Fatterson, No. 3 5 62 Green Bros., No. 1 6 62 G. H. Mitchell, No. *2 .. 5 62 R. W. Combes, No. 1 5 62 R. W. Combes, No. 2 6 62 G. and F. E. Biltcliff, No. 2 5 62 SINGLE HEN CONTEST. (Owner enters three birds.; Week’s Total. Black Orpingtons— H. Harris, No. 2 4 58 J. W. Thomson, No. 3 .. 5 55 A. R. Leckie, No. 1 .. .. 6 55 Any other variety. Heavy Breeds— Cuthbertson and Mitchell No. 2 6 68 Cuthbertson and Mitchell No. 3 5 60 Cuthbertson and Mitchell No. 1 . 5 57 Any other variety. Light Breeds— II. W. Beck, B.M., No. 2 .. 5 53 H. Williams, B.M., No. 2 .. 6 50 SINGLE DUCK CONTEST. (Owner enters three birds). Week’s Indian Runners— Eggs. Total J. W. Thomson No. 2 * 7 77 R. W Hawke, No. 1 7 75 II. A. Dawber, No. 3 7 73 H. A. Dawber, No. 1 .. . 7 72 J. W. Thomson, No. 1 7 71 R. W. Hawkes, No. 3 7 71