POULTRY NOTES.

Otago Witness, Issue 3801, 18 January 1927, Page 55

POULTRY NOTES.

By

Terror.

World’s Poultry , Congress.—Professor Alessandro Brizi, Director-General of Agriculture, Rome, has been chosen to head the National Committee which is making arrangements fdr Italy’s participation in the World’s Poultry Congress, to be held at . Ottawa' from July 27 to August. 4 this year. Associated with Dr Brizi on the committee are professor Comm. Antonio Pirocch (Royal High School of Agriculture, .Milan),, Comm. Dante Marchidri, (president of the Royal Experiment Station of Poultry Keeping,

Rovigo), Professor Cav. Uff Alessandro Ghigi (director of the Royal Experiment Station of Poultry Keeping, Rovigo), Professor Comm. Nello Fotticchia (InspectorGeneral of the Technical Services of Agriculture, Rome), and Carlo Pacchetti (president of the National Institute of Rabbit Keeping, Alessandria).. The Central Committee for Poultry Breeding in Poland is arranging for Polish national representation at the congress. The national committee named for this purpose is composed of Maurice Trybulski (of Warsaw, Professor of Poultry Breeding, president of the Central Committee for Poultry Breeding, and editor of the Polski Drob), Eugene Stuermer (of Warsaw, vice-president of Foreign Race Breeders’ Poultry Club), Gustave Reinhardt (of Grodno, president of the Union < f Poultry Breeders), Bronislav Chacharowski (of Poznan, inspector of poultry breeding at the Chamber of Agriculture), Joseph Victorini (inspector of poultry breeding at the Towarzystwo Gospodarskie, director of an egg co-operative society in Lwow), and Stephen Kopec (Professor at the Scientific Institute in Pulawy). A special motion picture is being prepared showing the Polish poultry breeding system, and this will be on display at Ottawa at the Poultry Congress Exhibition. Mr Ray S. Peck (director of the Canadian Government Motion Picture Bureau) has been named chairman of the Motion Picture Committee for the congress. Two motion picture theatres will be provided at the Congress Exhibition grounds, and programmes arranged to include all films submitted by national congress committee. Delegates will have an opportunity of viewing the Canadian Government “Seeing Canada” series of motion pictures. Scientists, practical poultrymen, dealers, and authorities on world conditions will give papers. These papers will be given'by representatives from the United States, England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, Germany, Italy, Russia, Latvia, Finland, Australia, South Africa, Brazil, Peru, the Dominican Republic Colombia, Ecuador, the Philippines, Barbadoes, India, Poland, Dutch East Africa, and Canada. The leading pens at the two Irish egglaying tests, ended October last, have made very good records. At the Cork •test six white Leghorns during the 48 weeks of the test averaged 243 1-3 eggs .each, and at the North of Ireland test six white Wyandottes averaged 255 eggs each.

An English poultry breeder puts up a good plea for small houses for poultry. He says: “Where poultry are massed there is always the temptation to put too many on the land. In some cases it would work out to 400 per acre. The land is not in a condition to carry half the quantity and remain sweet and fit to give the vitamin that poultry should derive from pasture. The immobility of large houses is one of their great drawbacks. Smaller houses are easier moved. A smaller quantity of birds together is, in my opinion, better, and would prove an equally paying proposition. I have recently come to the conclusion that dropping boards are not sanitary things.' I know where the board is but sin from the perch; I know no animal on the farm where its excreta is in such close promixity to its nasal organ, with a continual inhalation of carbonic acid gas from its neighbour, combined with its own. The fact of the hen inhaling this poison, mixing the same with the blood, she would be, after a time, below par, having a bad appetite and- imperfect assimilation.”

A QUESTION OF PEDIGREE. Poultry-keepers are often asked for advice as to the advisability of entering upon poultry-keeping for a living, and those who know how much depends upon the man irrespective of . the quality of the stock are very careful as to the amount of encouragement they give. .The following particulars of a case of alleged breach of contract should prove interesting to all poultrymen if only that it emphasises the need of caution in giving advice:

Mr Justice Talbot and a special jury sat at Devon Assizes on November 1 last to hear an action for alleged breach of contract by Edward' Francis Sibeth," of Newton Abbot, against William Henry Cook (Ltd.), the well-known poultry breeders of Orpington. Mr Trapwell, who represented the plaintiff, said the claim , was for damages in respect of advice given regarding the purchase of land for poultry, which advice plaintiff said was negligent, and in the sale of pedigree and trap-nested birds. Defendants denied that they gave the advice, and that, if it was given, it was gratis. They also denied breach of contract.

During the hearing of the case it transpired that plaintiff had returned to England after a short stay in New Zealand, where he had acquired a little experience in poultry-keeping. He had arrived in England with about £2500 in money, and came to the conclusion that he would endeavour to earn a living by poultryfarming. To that end and after reading some of defendant’s advertisements he applied to Mr Cook, who represented himself as the leading man in poultry breeding, and in a position to give people a good start in life by poultry farming. In effect, Mr Cook told plaintiff to leave himself in his hands, to purchase his birds from him, and added that he would see plaintiff properly started. In other words defendants said, “Trust in me.” Plaintiff parted with a good deal of money for fowls and appliances, and bn the advice of Mr Cook bought land in the neighbourhood of Newton Abbot, and also purchased from Mr Cook a house to accommodate himself and the fowls. The house was sent to Newton Abbot in parts, and arrived without a floor. The allegation now made was that the birds sold to plaintiff were not what defendants represented them to be. Plaintiff carried on, or attempted to carry on, for two years, but the whole affair was an ahject failure, and resulted in the loss of his money. Counsel said there was a contract on the part of defendants to advise plaintiff as to methods dnd to supply him with' fowls fit and proper’ for the purpose. Defendant, he contended, failed in this contract, and so - plaintiff was entitled to recover damages. Plaintiff first saw Mr Cook at Orpington in 1923, when defendant told him.-he had fitted but more_jsticcessful poultry farmers than anyone else in the trade. He suggested that Sibeth

should find suitable sites, anti that he would advise him as to the best to buy for poultry farming. He also, wrote out a document showing how plaintiff could best lay out his first £lOB2. This quoted trap-nested birds at 17s Cd each. Mr Holman Gregory, K.C. (who also represented the plaintiff), explained that trapnested birds were carefully selected on egg-laying results, and bred from previously selected birds. In that way they got pedigree birds. Mr Cook pointed out th..t there were two ways of conducting a poultry farm, one being to*producb eggs and the other to have pedigree birds and sell the eggs from them for sitting, and the progeny as day-old chicks. Plaintiff said he wanted to concentrate on the commercial side, but Cook pointed out that he could breed from the birds supplied, and so breeding-houses were included in the items. Later defendants said Sibeth would make a mistake if he did not go in for pedigree birds and breed. He emphasised the need for being able to mention the pedigrees of the birds in advertisements, and said it was therefore best to have the most expensive birds. Plaintiff compromised in the matter, by decidine to have 275 commercial birds,

and 10 pens, each comprising a cock and eight hens, of breeding birds. Mr Cook promised to take care that ’plaintiff, had the best birds money could buy. Plaintiff bought from Mr Cook a house 150 it long and 15ft wide, he paid £7OO for land at Newton Abbot, £5 each for 10 -breeding cockerels, £2 10s each for 80 breeding hens, and £290 for 275 white Leghorn pullets. The birds were not rung, and plaintiff could get no satisfaction when he asked how he was to trace pedigrees. Several of the birds soon develop 1 roup. He managed to get 1500 chickens from the first breeding, but 900 died within a few days of hatching. Plaintiff lost the whole of his money in the venture. He spent £7OO on land, £540 on chickens, £2lO on the house, £5O on sundries, and £3OO on pens, incubators, etc., a total of £luso, and he had also worked at a loss for two years. In 1925 he wrote to Cook saying he was compelled to complain about the stock supplied him, in regard to which he was not satisfied, and that he had made a mistake in going to defendants. Ihe birds had given him no peace, and he had had a continual fight with disease. He added that he had sought the advice of a veterinary surgeon. Counsel stated that plaintiff’s £2500 capital had gone, and he had sold everything he had for £lOOO, so that he was £l5OO out ot pocket by

the venture. . In giving evidence for the plaintiff. William Hammett, a professional and scientific breeder of poultry., said the pedigree would give the record and perJormance 'of the bird and those of its dams and sires for perhaps two generaI tions, and sometimes more. The pedigree I would describe the bird’s private mark, either on leg or wing, and the leg band number and particulars as to its laying. To say a bird was from a 250-egg strain was not offering any pedigree. The longer pedigree that could be given the better the price commanded by the bird. Crossexamined by Mr Du Parc, witness said the pedigree depended on the good faith and accuracy of the breeder. It was not in his experience that trap-nesting birds made them lay outside the nest. He said he would not advertise pedigree birds

unless they held pedigrees in accordance with his sense of the word. . Michael Francis Phelan, a specialist poultry breeder, of Northam, North Devon, said that when he visited the defendants’ estate at Orpington he saw no sign of a trap-nest on the place, and without it nobody could conduct pedigree

poultry breeding. . Lieutenant-Commander F. Gulley, who assisted the plaintiff at his farm when it. started, said Sibeth treated his chickens properly after they left the incubator.. In cross-examination witness said the birds he personally kept caught colds, but they never had roup.

Albert Edworthy, who conveyed the birds plaintiff purchased from the railway station to the farm, said he discovered when taking them out of the crate that one bird was ill. He. told plaintiff, who immediately isolated it. His Lordship, at the conclusion of plaintiff’s case, said there had been po evidence as to defendants giving the plaintiff bad advice with regard to the selection of the land for his poultry farm, and that part of the case must therefore fail. Opening the defence, Mr Du Parc said Mr Cook did not believe in trap-nesting. His method was to allow birds of a good laying strain to run together, and .to keep accurate observations of the laying of the whole pen. If the average of eggs fell off then Mr Cook did any necessary trap-nesting. The plaintiff was never sold birds that were represented to be trapnested birds. Those sold to him were acknowledged as satisfactory. With regard to the roup that had broken out among plaintiff’s birds, there was no roup among birds on defendants’ estate, and the cause of the trouble was that the birds were put into a - damp and ill-venti-lated house when they reached plaintiff. Counsel pointed out that in his original letter of complaint the plaintiff never made any reference to trap-nested or pedigree birds. William Henry Cook, managing director of the defendant company, said the company raised from 7000 to 15,000 birds a year, and sent out thousands of eggs to farmers and students to rear birds for the company. The company had won over 10,000 cups and prizes. He denied ever persuading plaintiff to go in for breeding rather than commercial egg production. When the plaintiff (who was staying with witness) expressed his desire to purchase his birds, witness asked him several times to help select the birds, but plaintiff said he had not the time. Nothing was ever said about trap-nested or . pedigree birds, although every bird on the defendants’ farm was a pedigree bird. Every bird the plaintiff was supplied with was reared on the farm and not by pupils. Every hird sent to plaintiff passed through the hands of witness, and he could not find a fault in any' of them. When witness visited plaintiff’s farm he was astonished to find a large number of chickens of various ages' .running together. Everything looked neglected, and yet he was surprised at the good health of the birds. Plaintiff made no complaint that be had lost a? 'chicken. If the birds developed colds and roup' it was through being remo veil from dry quarters to damp bnes.';' Mr Holman Gregory: I? not a pedigree a common 'expression in the ti - aide?.

Witness: Aly experience does not tell me so. Mr Holman Gregory: What docs pedigree mean when referred to in a trade paper ? Witness: It means purebred stock. Mr Holman Gregory: Is not trap-nest a well-known term in the trade? Witness: Yes, unfortunately. Mr Holman Gregory: The word pedigree never passed between you and plaintiff? Witness: No. In further examination Mr Cook said he never said or wrote to plaintiff anything to suggest to plaintiff that he had sold him trap-nested birds. William White Broomhead, of Wallington Green, Surrey, sub-editor of Poultry, stated that in his view the defendants’ method of ascertaining the value of birds was sound. There were two schools of thought in regard to trap-nesting, and some people would not have anything to do with trap-nests. There was a marked division of opinion among poultry breeders on the point. The ustial meaning of pedigree was knowledge of the parentage v of birds, but if one knew the egg-laying strain of a bird one was justified in using the word pedigree. A laying strain must be pedigree bred. Mr Holman Gregory caused a laugh in his cross-examination when he suggested that the witness was taking care not to be trap-nested. Harry Cousins, defendants’ manager, and Henry Robert Higgs, a carpenter in the employment of defendants, also gave evidence, the former stating that he helped Mr Cook to select the birds for plaintiff, and they were absolutely sound. After a retirement of 20 minutes the jury returned to court with a verdict in favour'of plaintiff, who was awarded £4OO damages, with costs. Reilly’s report very few poultry coming on to the market. There is a keen demand for really good birds, especially for young ducklings and cockerels, and for really good cockerels 9s to 10s is obtainable, and up to 14s for. really choice ducklings. The market is bare of really good birds. This -'week we penned only a few birds, hens realising 2s 8d to 5s (average of 4s 2d) per pair, chickens from 8d to 3s 6d (average 2s 6d) per pair, and cockerels from 3s lOd to 5s 8d (average 5s 2d) per pair. Eggs have been slow of sale at Is 9d. for stamped and guaranteed and Is 8d for ordinary case eggs. We expect a sharp drop in prices.

22nd PAPANUI EGG-LAYING COMPETITION. Leading Pens 39tli Week ended January 1 (273 days). i ■ FLOCK TEAMS CONTEST (six birda). —Light and Heavy Breeds. —

SINGLE HEN OPEN CHAMPIONSHIP. (For Light and Heavy Breeds.) t

WHITE LEGHORN SINGLE HEN CONTEST. (Owner enters three birds.)

SINGLE HEN CONTEST. (Owner enters three birds.; \ Week’s

SINGLE DUCK CONTEST. (Owner enters three birds).

— Several women are . employed in Government laboratories in scientific research, .while many others hav.e received grants to assist them in their , work.

Week's Weight White Leghorna— Eggs. oz. drs. Total W. E. Ward .. .. 28 58.12 1240 H. C. West .. .. 30 63.6 1188 J. Liggins .. 26 56.3 1152 E. Hawes .. 27 54.10 1129 J. Bobbett .. 29 61.13 . 1118 H. Williams .. 27 55.5 1104 Heavy Breeds — P. Bailey, R.I.R. .. 28 55.1 1143

Week’s Weight White Leghorns— Bggsoz. drs. Total Miss M. White .. 7 12.14 236 N. Harrison .. ... 4 9.1 225 A. G. F. Ross .. 5 10.7 201 F. Hawes Q 4.4 198 J. Rattigan .. 6 13.2 140 Black Orpingtons— J. Kingsland 6 12.9 224

Week’s Egg<?. Total H. Williams, No. 2 2 236 A. 0. Goodlet, No. 3 6 234 R. W. Coombes, No. 1 6 229 W. J. Richards, No. 1 6 228 Miss M. White, No. 3 5 224

Black Orpingtons— Eggs. Total. G. Blair, No. 2 .. .. 6 218 J. W. Thomson, No. 3 .. 5 203 H. Harris, 2 .. 4 193 J. W. Thomson, No. 2 .. 0 188 Any other variety. Heavy Breeds— Cuthbertson and Mitchell, W.R., No. a 3 221 . Cuthbertson and Mitchell, W.R., No. 1 4 198 Cuthbertson and Mitchell, W.R., No. 3 1 191 D. O’Hern, W.W., No. 1 4 189 Any other variety. Light Breeds — H. Williams, B.M., No. 1 3 191 R. Pearce, Anconia, No. 2 .4 173 H. W. Beck, B.M., No. 2 1 172

Week's Indian Runners — Hggs. Total J. W. Thomson, No. 2 6 250 H. A. Dawber, No. 3 . 6 256 R. W. Hayrke, No. 3 . 4 254 R. W. Hawke, No. 1 7 252 J. W. Thomson, No. 3 . ■ 7 250