POULTRY NOTES.

Otago Witness, Issue 3888, 18 September 1928, Page 32

POULTRY NOTES.

By

Terror.

At a recent meeting of the National Poultry Parliament (England), held at Portsmouth, a most interesting address — interesting to New Zealand commercial egg farmers as to those of England—was delivered by Major C. M, Watson, his subject being “ The Commercial Egg Farmer and the Egg Marketing Scheme.” The address would take up too much space in these weekly notes to be reproduced in full, so I have quoted only so much as appears to be of general interest. The Major, inter alia, said: “The two main questions which I wish to discuss to-night are, firstly, Can we improve the quality of our eggs? and, secondly, Will the scheme for egg marketing reform stimulate our efforts in that direction? The first, and to my mind the most important, point is freshness. It is our principal asset in meeting foreign competition, and I believe that retailers will agree that a regular supply of really fresh eggs has a far greater influence on their sales than either colour or weight. On the vast majority of commercial farms eggs are collected daily from clean nests and properly stored until despatch, so that the question passes out of the hands of the farmer into those of the distributor, who may be the local weekly market, wholesaler, or retailer, and in the future the packing station. .Many retailers are content with a weekly consignment, and in this respect their wishes must be met by the producer. Other factors which militate against more frequent despatch are the high rail charges and the unsatisfactory nature of this means of transport. Road transport has proved most satisfactory, and, where sufficient farmers can combine to make up a load, exceedingly cheap. To give an instance, it costs me 9d per 30-dozen ease to deliver my eggs a distance of over 40 miles, and this charge includes the re.turn of empty cases. Until freights are reduced and the railway companies made to realise their responsibility for the safe, arrival of the consignment, there is no induceihent for the producer to market his eggs at more frequent intervals. The second point is appearance, and here there is little ground for complaint. Generally commercial farmers’ eggs are clean, and efforts are made to maintain a high standard of natural cleanliness, if only to reduce the labour of washing. The quality of eggs is affected by bloodspots. Many hold that blood-spots are caused by excessive use of foods with a high protein content. This may be one of the causes, but it is by no means the only cause. I doubt if it -is even a common cause. Some breeds, notably white Leghorns, and perhaps some strains, are worse than others in this respect. Heavy and sustained production aggravates the trouble, especially if it is accompanied by adverse climatic conditions. ' It is most objectionable, and the only remedy is candling before sale. Perhaps it is not generally realised that candling is an expert’s job. Badly done, it is worse than useless, as it produces a false sense

of security and. is not an operation which can be economically carried out on any but the largest farms. I should Ake to ask what arrangements have been made for the training of expert candlers? The next trouble turns on the proportion, sometimes a relatively large proportion, of thin-shelled eggs. That, again, is largely caused by heavy production, and pcssibly is aggravated by climatic conditions. I know of no certain remedy. Breakages are quite bad enough at the best of times, and-the double handling involved by packing stations may create an oppressive overhead charge, especially if the 30-dozen case is used. The provision of a reliable cardboard carton has done much to quieten our fears on this point, and we would like to recommend its universal use to the exclusion of the 30-dozen case. The retailer might fairly be asked to take a lower percentage of profit if he could handle eggs nearly as easily as a pound of tea and were saved the labour and loss entailed in unpacking and handling bulk consignments. The next points are flavour and colour. Modern poultry feeding and housing should ensure that the egg is free-from any contamination which might adversely affect its flavour. A complaint to the producer should enable him to detect and remove the cause. Colour is a matter of breed, and as we find it difficult to induce the retailer to pay more for brown eggs we pay Tittle attention to it. Certainly there is not enough in it to induce us to change from a high-producing white egg breed to a lower producing brown egg breed. The final point is size. From the commercial farmer’s point of view the question of grade is the crux of the whole scheme. Unfortunately this problem bristles with difficulties, and is interconnected with many other factors, such as the proportion of hens to pullets, the breed of fowl kept, increased winter production, the ability of the breeder to supply us with stock which can reproduce their high standard under commercial conditions, the best methods of feeding and housing, and climatic and other conditions. . The most important factor is the inherent ability of the pullet to lay a large egg under commercial conditions. This is a breeder’s problem which so far has not been solved. A minimum weight of 2oz has been the standard. M e think it unreasonable to expect the commercial fanner to reproduce a standard which is with difficulty obtained by a breeder with a few picked birds under the most advantageous conditions. A short time ago 1 was present at a meeting of nine commercial farmers who were farming an aggregate of over 30,000 birds, and we agreed that the proposed grades, and in particular the * standard ’ grade, was an impossible ideal under existing conditions. We have been told that we must produce the 2oz egg, but nobody can tell us how to do it and at the same time maintain a high winter output. Experiments in housing, feeding, and breeding carried out with a few. hens may appear to give tangible results, but we must be convinced that these results are commercially obtainable before we are prepared to adopt them. Few, if any, of us have the facilities or can afford to experiment on a large scale. We look to the Ministry of Agriculture for help. A large experimental farm, run on commercial lines, would settle many problems and would be of incalculable benefit to the industry. We must look to' the future. . . . There is another aspect. To-day we are much the same as many British manufacturers. Our plants are not up to date, and we cannot afford to scrap them. Our industry is badly financed. Most of us own our own farms; many of us have had to borrow money on the security of the freehold; and beyond that doubtful asset, our personal credit, there is no security on which we can raise capital to carry out such improvements as may be necessary or to build and operate, the packing stations. We commend this problem to the Ministry for careful sympathetic consideration. The second factor in the production _ of the ‘standard’ egg is the proportion which the winter output bears to the spring output. Retailers generally, and especially the large retailers with whom many commercial farmers deal direct on a trading contract, have stimulated winter production by restrictive and penal clauses which force us to increase our winter output and restrict our spring flush. The proportion aimed at is the narrow margin of not exceeding two and a-half times the October-Novem-ber supply, and a production of over three times that supply entails, in many cases, severe loss on the producer. We are not complaining. The principle is perfectly fair, although we think that the ratio is too close. Unfortunately, this narrow ratio can only be attained at the expense of egg size. It is essential to increase the proportion of pullets to hens, and it is essential to force birds under lights. Carefully handled, lights have a surprising effect on production, but at the expense of s’ze, not only during the forcing period, but for several months afterwards. This forcing must commence in the early autumn, and cannot be discontinued until late February* or early March_ without at once throwing the birds into a moult, with a severe drop in production. The forcing has a bad effect on the proportion of blood-spotted and thin-shelled eggs and on the mortality, but these are of minor importance compared with the drop in the average size of the egg. It may be thought that the increased production w would compensate us for the fall in average egg weight, but it is generally, conceded that the total yearly output is affected to a very small extent. The winter yield is increased and the spring yield reduced. The labour and expense incurred by increased winter production is extremely heavy. A large - electric light plant is an expensive item. The rise in the price of feed and the decreasing value of old hens and spring chicken have increased the cost of the pullet to an alarming extent. Even now it is a moot point as to whether it pays, and I can conceive nothing more calculated to restrict winter production than the insistence on the suggested grades.” . On Feeding.—As if is food that makes eggs, too much attention cannot be given to the matter of its composition, etc. Experience has proved that mash formed of bran, pollard, meat or meat meal, and chaffed green food, with wheat at night, will produce eggs in good quantity. Some pqultry keepers, use buttermilk instead of meat,, and obtain satisfactory results. Also in cold weather, broken maize fed with the wheat helps to a

larger output of eggs. The amount of food supplied is also important—they must have neither too much nor too little. Table scraps where only a few fowls are kept make an important component of the -morning mash, and as they vary in kind they cause a change—a variety— gin the food, and this creates appetite and greater relish. Tea leaves should not be included in the mash, and potato peelings, though filling and fattening, should not form the bulk of the mash, for they are not an egg-forming food. When the fowls fly to the food and eat ravenously they are under-fed. When they look with a languid eye on the mash, and lazily turn it over in the search for titbits they are over-fed. Experience will quickly enable the feeder to judge the right amount to supply; but “experience” in this respect includes “ observation.” There are many people who feed their fowls with regularity, and have done so for years, but who lack “ observation.” They throw down the food and collect the eggs without looking over the flock to see how it is acting. They do not know whether the fowls could eat more at a meal, or whether after they are satisfied some food is left over to be stale and be subsequently eaten. A great dea£, of sickness in poultry yards is due to 'the consumption of left-over food, to stale water, and empty water vessels.' An observant poultry keeper is sufficiently interested in his business to attend to such details as are here pointed out, and it is he who reaps the rewards! healthy birds and profitable egg yield. Milk in the Mash v. Mi k as a Drink.— The advantages gained by giving milk in the mash are: First, there is no waste, such as is seen when fed in fountains due to milk becoming fouled or dirty and a portion having to be thrown away. Second, you can be assured that each bird gets a proper portion if fed in small quantities and quickly cleared up. therefore doing away with the risk of chicks drinking almost to bursting point, as is seen when given in the liquid form. Third, there is not that danger of the milk becoming heated and tainted which you get when milk is put into a fountain. Fourth, milk fed in the mash does not leave the chicks “ messy ” and dirty. Reilly’s report: A small penning at our Wednesday's sale, with a. keen demand for all lines. Hens: 6 at 7s Bd, 4 at 7s 2d, 11 at 7s. 2 at Cs. Pullets: 12 at 12s. 2 at 8s 6d, 6 at Bs, 12 at 7s lOd, 4 at 7s 4d, 6 at 6s lOd, 3 at 6s 4d, 4 at 6s. Cockerels: 2 at 13s, 2 at Us, 3 at 9s 4d, 6 at 8s 2d, 3 at Bs, 2 at 7s 2d. 2 at 6s Bd, 2 at 6s 2d. 3 at 6s. Ducks: 6 at 10s, 6 at 9s 6d, 6 at 9s 2d —all at “ per pair.” Chickens: 39 at 4d each. One bantam cockerel at Is. Turkeys: 3 hens at Is Id per lb, 2 gobblers at Is 24d, 1 gobbler at Is 4d, 1 gobbler at 30s. Eggs: Market firm; supplies wanted. We secured consignors Is 6d to Is 7d per dozen for guaranteed fresh. THE COST OF RAISING 250 PULLETS. Mr Herbert Howes, assistant director of the National Poultry Institute, writing on this subject says:— “ Some time ago I made some calculations to show which was the cheapest method of producing 250 pullets to the stage when they were ready for laying in the autumn: “(1) If you purchased eggs in the spring you would require 1000 eggs at approximately £5 per 100 to be on the safe side, and the 250 pullets resulting from the eggs would cost £367 17s 8d to rear to a laying stage, including all the expenses of incubator houses, brooders, and food. “(2) If you purchased day-old chicks, 600 would be required at £lO per 100, and the cost would be £350 Is. “(3) If you purchased three-manth-old pullets at 10s per head the cost would be £3OB 2s. “(4) If you purchased six-month-old pullets the cost would be £395 12s. “ There are other systems of raising 250 laying pullets economically, such as by starting with a breeding pen or by obtaining second-season hens and breeding from them, but the evidence is sufficient to show that if you go to a breeder now with a request for three or four-month-old pullets you are doing a very sensible thing.”

24th PAPANUI ECC-LAYINC COMPETITION. Leading Pens 22nd Week ended September 1 (154 days).

TEST 6. —FLOCK TEAMS, SIX BIRDS. —Light and Heavy Breeds.—

TEST 1.—J. H. SHAW MEMORIAL CHALLENGE. —Light and Heavy Breeds.— % - - Week’s Weight Eggs, oz.drs. Total. Black Orpingtons— T. D. Dalziel 6 14. 8 105 Miss Meyrick ». 1 1.13 68 White Leghorns— Green Bros, No. 1 6 12.10 131 L. J. Knowles .. 5 10. 3 131 T. W. Betteridge .. 6 12.14 126 Green Bros, No. 2 6 14. 2 125 Master Liggins .. 6 13. 1 122 v E. J. Ross .. 5 9.10 119 TEST 2.—WHITE LEGHORN SINGLE HEN (Owner Enters Three Birds.) Week's eggs. Total. T. Bond, No. 1 .. 0 127 H. Williams, No. 1 6 126 S. E. Davey, No. 3 5 125 J. ~ J. W. Thomson, No. 2 5 125 : F. Hawes, No. 2 . . 6 123 i W. H. West, No. 3 6 123 ■’ T. W. Betteridge, No. 'i 7 123 T. W. Betteridge, No. 2 6 122 H. Williams, No. 2 4 122 TEST 3.—ANY OTHER VARIETY LIGHT BREEDS EXCEPT WHITE LEGHORNS. (Owner enters Three Birds.) Week’s eggs. Total. Anconas — R. Pearce, No. 3 .. 4 94 S. H. Mitchell, No. 2 5 88 TEST 4.—BLACK ORPINGTONS. Week’s eggs. Total* J. M. Campbell, No. 2 a. a •7 140 J. M. Campbell, No. 3 * a 7 133 A. M. Espie, No. 2 * a 6 121 A. R. Leckie, No. 1 a a 5 112 A. R. Leckie,_ No. 3 • • 5 112 TEST 5.—ANY OTHER VARIETY HEAVY BREEDS. —Other than Black Orpingtons Week’s eggs. Total* J. R. Griffen (L.S.j, 1 6 1?6 B. G. Corlett (W.R.), NO. 2 4 113 J. C. Wilson (L.S.), No. 1 5 109 ■

White Leghorns— Week’s Weight Eggs. Total. H. W. Beck, No. 1 27 55. 3 653 H. Harrison . . 32 64. 2 651 H. W. Beck, No. 2 26 56.10 628 W. E. Ward .. 28 59. 5 595 (One dead.) F. Hawes . . .. 29 58.11 588 M. C. Craig . , 25 54. 8 546 G. J. Verrail . . 32 68.13 546 TEST 7.—SINGLE DUCKS. Pekins— Week’s eggs. Total. J. W. Thomson, No. 3 .. 7 123 Mrs A. Little, No. 3 .. 4 120 H. A. Dawber, No. 2 . . 5 120 J. W. Thomson, No. 2.. 7 120 Indian Runners — C. E. Barnett, No. 1 .. 7 143 J. W. Thomson, No. 1 . . 6 142 J. W. Thomson, No. 3 .. 7« 141 F. R. Cotton, No. 2 .. 5 141 J. W. Thomson, No. 3 .. 7 141 H. A. Dawber, No. 2 . . 7 140