THE POULTRY RUN

Southland Times, Issue 19690, 24 October 1925, Page 11

THE POULTRY RUN

NEWS AND NOTES = (By “Leghorn.”) Fanciers, not merely in Dunedin but also in other parts’of New Zealand, will be interested to hear that there are due to arrive early in November two trios of Polish bantams. One is of white Polish and the other of whitecrested blacks. They are to the orders of Messrs J. Dickeson, of Anderson Bay, and J. P. He are, Dunedin, respectively. These bantams are from the stock of Major P. T. Williams, Perranwell, Cornwall, England, a gentleman who is recognised as the leading breeder and judge of Polish bantams in England. Major Williams’s stock is in great demand in the Old Country. His wins at the leading shows are too numerous to give in detail; suffice it to say that in 1923 his birds won over 140 specials and money prizes, including first at such leading shows as the Dairy, the Olympia, Crystal Palace, Royal, Birmingham, Scottish Dairy, Bradford, etc.

Under the heading “Modern Hen’s Busy Life” an Auckland writer has something interesting to say on the subject of hens’ peculiar liking fcr old mortar. He says:— The old Hamburghs used to lay well up to their 12th year, but they were neither crowded, hurried, nor fed as the modern hen is. I have known at least one hen who laid well into her 13th year, and her diet was oats, house scraps (mainly vegetables), and sharps and cinders, nothing else all the year round, except what she picked up for herself. It is true that mest of her eggs were laid in the spring and summer, though a good proportion came in late autumn. I have at present a White Leghorn hen which was hatched in February, 1914, and which is still laying her four and five eggs a week. The high feeding for early and rapid production was unknown in the days when “granny” flourished and the appetites of hens were not nearly as large as those of the heavy layers of to-day, and they certainly seemed to live longer and lay longer that the up-to-date commercial hen. Perhaps the combination of lime and sand in mortar meets some deficit need that oyster shell leaves unsatisfied. : Very certainly the hens love old mortar, 1 and they will clear the pointing out of an old wall ’if they can get at it. So why should we not make mortar one of the “necessaries” to be provided in every poultry yard? It is always worth while listening to the opinion of the hens. They known so much more about poultry than we do. Those who keep a few fowls in a back garden or on a small section will find the interchangeable run system very beneficial and economical. The idea is to let the fowls run on different portions of the garden, say for three or even six months at a time, and this can be contrived either by means of a removable hurdle fence or by setting the roosting-houses and scratching shed in the centre of the ground and dividing it into several enclosures each of which can be used for the fowls, in turn, while the others are being cropped. Obviously the former is the more economical plan if the garden and other conditions lend themselves to that arrangement. The value of this plan is twofold. In the first place the fowls are ensured a run on ground that may be described as fresh and clean for if four plots are available, or if the ground can be divided into four, no portion will carry fowls more than once in say 18 months or two years. Then again, the ground will be richly manured for cultural purposes, and if it is deeply dug when the fowls come off it will bear a heavy crop, especially of the cabbage tribe. The present is a suitable time for digging up a run that has been occupied by fowls since potatoes and other crops were lifted from it last March or April. It should be noted that a small earth run such as is suggested, cannot be depended upon to provide exercise for the fowls in winter, and a scratching shed is a necessary adjunct to keep the birds active in inclement weather.

An observant eye can readily detect whether or not a flock is over-fat Watch a pen of birds that are over-fat, and they will appear to be slow and sluggish without any particular desire to take exercise or food. They have not that wide-awake, business-like stride of th* birds in the fit flock. Let your system of feeding, then, be such that it keeps the layers active and sprightly, and if they drop out of condition, look fcr the likely cause at once. Birds in confinement need more occupation and exercise than those on free range; the latter provides a means of “running off” surplus fat. It is among flocks whose owners endeavour to feed cheaply that over-fat condition is common. Too free use is made of maize, potatoes, potato peelings, barley meal and such like fattening ingredients, while cheap husky oats and fibrous clover meal do their share to interfere with digestion and to put the birds out of condition. You cannot obtain either full egg baskets or a free bill of health by cheap feeding.

VITAL ELEMENTS. EXPERTS’ INVESTIGATIONS. The Poultry Tribune, in an interesting article on ‘Vital Elements,’ says: “The idea is general that a hen has the ability to replace in her body the common food elements, such as protein, carbonates, and fat, as fast as they are used for making eggs. When a hen’s body loses too much of any of those food elements she stops laying until her body has time to make up the deficiency. There are other vital chemicals of life, probably many that we know nothing of, but the absence of which can readily be observed. The hen does not seem to be able to replace these vital elements in her body as fast as they are used in her eggs. Her method is to lay in a supply of these elements in her body during her rest periods of egg production when she is moulting or hatching, and brooding her chicks under natural conditions. When the hen is called on for a continuous high egg yield she soon uses most of her supply of these vital elements, and with no opportunity to replace them her eggs are soon lacking in these qualities. Her chicks necessarily start life seriously handicapped.” Mr. Edward Brown, F. L. S., in referring to these remarks, endorses opinions which have been expressed by many others who are qualified to deal with the subject. He says: “It has long been evident to those who have studied this question, and not merely thought of egg production as the end-all and be-all of poultry husbandry, that there is a limit to the supply of what are termed vital elements, and for which, so far as we know, feed does not provide. Thus question has been, and still is, ignored both in this country and others where commercial methods are adopted. Discoveries during later years, notably as to vitamins, have shown a new direction of investigation and experiment. At the same time it is evident these are not enough. Another quotation may be given and commended to the attention of every breeder—namely, breeding hens, to produce their best in strong, vigorous chicks, should not be permitted to lay heavy just before or during the breeding season. Again I may be permitted to say that, in my judgment, high egg production and breeding qualities are incompatible in the same bird at the same time, in spite of all that breeders of extreme layers may say.” Chicks raised to the point where they forage for themselves are not necessarily insured of being future profitable members of the laying flock. They must have some care during the entire summer. The Illinois agricultural college has prepared a number of pointed suggestions on chickraising. A few of the ideas that apply to the larger chickens are as follows:—A growing mash, fed throughout the summer, balances the grain ration and keeps the chicks growing without any set-backs. Early roosting keeps the chicks from crowding into the corners. Removing the cockerels at

broiler age gives the pullets more room to grow and develop. Birds of both sexes will grow better when separated. Heavy feeding before the pullets are placed in winter quarters gets them in shape for laying during the winter. Careful culling before the pullets go into winter quarters eliminates many unprofitable birds. Growing strong, healthy chicks requires the constant, careful attention of the farmer or his wife. DISEASES IN FOWLS. IMPORTANCE OF LIME. CRAVING FOR MORTAR. “If hens have all thaie diseases, I’d rather not keep them at all,” said the clergyman’s wife, after the poultry lecture. “Hens,” I replied, “have nearly every disease known among human beings, and from the same cause, diet, over-crowd-ing and microbes!” I thought then that I knew a good deal about diet, and that my hens were excellently catered for but they recently gave me a broad hint that they thought otherwise. When well-fed animals tumble over one another in their eagerness to get at some article of food, we may conclude that their system has a very great need for it, and the craving becomes too much for their good manners. We know hew quite guileless reindeer will trample down every living thing in the way of their mad rush for the salt lick after a winter diet of bleached-out moss, and when I saw my hens behaving in much the same way over an old heap of mortar, I began to wonder, writes G.H. in the New Zealand Herald, if, after all, flint, grit and oyster shell supplied their mineral needs as well as we imagined.

After pondering’ it out I eventually reasoned thus: Where does the wild bird get all the lime she needs? You would say, but then she does not need a tenth part of eggshell that our hens do. Nor does she eat a tenth part of the carbohydrates, nor any at all in the concentrated form of ground meals that hens do. Perhaps in the case of the hen, as of the human being, the system is so drained of lime in counteracting the acidity produced by excess of carbohydrates, that she needs to eat a large quantity in palatable and easily-assimilated form. That is what my hens appeared to feel, for they cleared a large heap of mertar which had lain since the builders left it some three years before. They have not disdained to eat oyster shell as well, but have taken much less than usual. As the hens cleared the last scrap of mortar, scratching grass and gravel into holes in seeking fcr every crumb, I see that I must take steps to provide more. Can anyone say how long mortar must lie before being safe for fowls to eat ? Some years ago I had a pullet crop-bcund from swallowing a rather large lump of a rockery that my good lady constructed from old building stones, with chunks of mortar adhering. I broke it up in the crcp but still it did not pass, and upon operating I found that the lower opening out of the crop was so inflamed as to be almost closed. I was quite unable to say whether this was due to the mechanical irritation or to the lime in the centre of the lump still “quick.” Plenty of oil and milk soon cured it, but as I had no idea how old that mortar was I cannot say how long it must lie to be safe for use, and one does not care to take risk or experiment with so virulent a stuff as quicklime. The passion for mortar is so strong in poultry that we ought to supply it if we are not in a limestone or chalk district. Possibly a supply cf chalk might suffice but it never certain that one form of mineral may be given in place of another. For instance, iron in lettuce is effective for hens and humans, yet few can tolerate iron pills chemically manufactured, while the substitution of common salt for potassium magnesium and other minerals is not only effective but often leads to absolute disaster. It is a mistake to suppose that when we have boiled out or skimmed off all the precious valuable salts from our food, just heaping on chloride sodium (common table salt) will make good all deficiencies. The systems in hens and human beings, too, need all the salts, and not only that, but need them all in the right proportion, and over-dosing with one will not keep animals healthy. Lime is not in quite the same category as salt, but it is necessary to the system, and when we drain the system of available lime w r e must find the best way to make good the shortage. That oyster shell does not suffice I think has been very clearly proved. The lack of lime in the human system does not show very quickly, though it does quite certainly in time. Perhaps it is the same with the hens, and while they appear to be healthy enough on these farms where a complete clearance is made before the birds are much more than infants of two or three years old (their normal life being from 10 to 15 years), yet I am inclined to believe that the short life and short productive period of the modern hen is as much due to diet as to rapid egg production.

MINERAL ESSENTIAL TO FOWLS. Give oyster grit or crushed limestone. Laying hens have not only to keep their body going by what they consume, but they have also to find the mineral content for their eggs and eggshells. Very little of this can be found in the vegetable grains and meals fed to them, nor in green food, because vegetable matter has a very low content of minerals. The protein part of a hen’s food will supply some minerals, but not all that she requires. Neither growing chicks nor laying stock will give satisfaction if fed solely on vegetable products. Minerals they need, and minerals they must have, if the best results are to be achieved; but if the minerals are given in the form of protein the ration is thrown out of balance, and evil again is the result, and not good. Those who know say birds must be well supplied with mineral matter during the time they are growing. The feeding of a lot of protein matter forces the pullets, but it is a mistake. Far better to let them have plenty of minerals, such as phosphorus, calcium carbonate, and sodium chloride, so as to grow bone, muscle, and sinew. The frame needs building, and these minerals will help to do it. Minerals have more to do with egglaying than many people suppose. Recently some experiments have been conducted with a view to finding out “what place minerals have in the rations of egg-pro-ducing birds.” The Ohio Experiment Station has developed a mineral mixture consisting of three ingredients—bone or rock phosphate, 60 per cent.; calium carbonate, 20 per cent.; and sodium chloride, 20 per cent. The last-named ingredient is common salt, and is a very inexpensive article. The calcium carbonate may be obtained from crushed lime and stone, whilst ground bone and ground rock phosphate will furnish the necessary phosphorus. What the experiments revealed: Three groups were tested for one year. Group one had grain, meat scraps, and mash. Group two fed on • cottonseed meal and 4 per cent, of minerals. Group three was fed as two without the minerals. The results were: Group one, 122 eggs; group two, 106, group three, 49 eggs per hen. The mortality was 10, 6, 24 respectively. The test proved that minerals count, as they doubled the results of the cottonseed ration and had low mortality. Another experiment concerned three pens of fifty Leghorns. Group one was fed the mash as referred to above, plus 20 per cent, meat scraps; group two was furnished basal mash, plus 20 per cent, peanut meal and 4 per cent of a mineral mixture; the mineral mixture contained 60 per cent, steamed bone meal, 20 per cent, calcium carbonate, and 20 per cent, sodium chloride or common salt. Group three was fed on basal mash, plus 20 per cent, peanut meal and 4 per

cent, of a mineral mixture, composed of 60 per cent, ground rock phosphate, 20 per cent, ground limestone testing 95 per cent, calcium carbonate, and 20 per cent, sodium chloride or salt. The same grain mixture was fed to all. In the first year’s test group one produced 117 eggs per hen, group two 98 eggs per bird, and group three 107 eggs. From this test it appears entirely possible that ground rock phosphate may replace the expensive bone meal in the ration, and, further, that vegetable proteins as found in peanut meal, plus a mineral mixture, may give practically as good results as the animal protein feeds. If such a condition is brought about, as it appars quite likely, the cost of keeping a stock of poultry will be greatly reduced, as the animal protein is the most expensive part of the ordinary mash.