POULTRY NOTES

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 83, Issue 56, 8 March 1939, Page 11

POULTRY NOTES

CONSTITUTION AND EGG PRODUCTION. It is a matter of opinion among poultry-keepers about what constitutes a heavy laying strain. Consistently high records exceeding the 300-egg mark have been rather common in egg-laying contests the world over during the last few years, and these records constitute, of course, abundant evidence that abnormal heavy laying strains are in evidence in all parts of the world to-day. It is difficult to produce 300-eggers. It is far harder to select them in advance when they are young pullets just about to start laying. Such pullets must be bred to lay, yet 300 eggs is already not being considered quite good enough, for many pullets (hens) have recorded production of two or three dozen eggs more than that mark with occasionally an odd one well over that figure. Instances of ducks having recorded an egg a day and over in egg-laying tests are now rather common, and it appears to be only a matter of time when a hen will do likewise. But a heavy laying strain showing flock averages is a much better indication of a poultry-keeper's ability. Allowing for breed, location and numbers kept, one breeder may claim 200 eggs for his strain as being heavy layers, and rightly too. Another may regard this number with contempt, and claim a flock average of 250, which certainly constitutes a much heavier laying strain. Others can rightly claim for a heavy laying strain, and with a number either more or less than 200 or even 250. Ordinary stock bred close to standard for egg production and egg size, with heavy flock averages, has not shown much improvement over the last 10 years. There may be a slight improvement in flock averages on poultry farms, but on the other hand, competition figures, insofar as they are concerned, show that average production is practically stationary, and it can safely be assumed that the competition averages of round about 200 eggs during the last 10 years indicate that very few poultry-keepers attain a similar average on their farms.

Still, taking into consideration the present day combination of quantity, size, and the winter production of eggs by nearly all breeds of poultry, there is abundant proof of the progress that has been made in the breeding of poultry, that have the bodies and also the type, which indicates great egg capacity. Each successive generation on many farms has given higher and yet higher yields in general flock management.

Worth of Testing. Testing, by trap-nest or single pen, as everybody knows, has played the most important part for bringing about the high production results obtained today, and has also proved the worth of the fowls in this direction, and also before being selected for the breeding pen. The mating of the highest grade cockerels themselves, from a heavy laying hen, produces the egg laying possibilities to be proved, when the best are graded and culled also tested. It may then be claimed that one has a selected flock, and the number of eggs obtained, too, will constitute a heavy laying flock average. This, in a mannner, is pedigree breeding, when all records of eggs and other data are rigidly kept. But in mating pedigreed birds there is a proper system to follow. Most breeders, more especially beginners, are much tempted to mate 300 eggers and upwards to males bred from hens which have likewise recorded scores of 300 eggs and upwards. This class of mating is rarely advisable. Hens laying from 250 to 280 eggs are often far better than those which laid 290 to 300, as egg quantity is one link in a long chain, and if the other links are weak the chain is not reliable. What is meant by the long chain are such things as egg size, shell texture and shape, body size and proportions, bone, head points, stamina, etc. If these are not properly and correctly developed, the lower number producers would be the better stock. Hens producing 300 eggs and upward, if mated to males from 260 to 270 egg hens, will produce stock of far better all-round quality, with much more possibility of higher producers, than the matings of like and like, meaning 300 eggers on each side of the mating. An ideal mating for hens of 200 to 230 production, with weight of eggs 24 oz and more to the dozen, is a cockerel from a hen with an egg record of 250 to 270. With a cockerel of this grade he will produce stock of the right kind for those who want to attain a higher flock average, and in this manner of mating the cockerel is more than half the pen. For a cockerel to have blood lines two grades higher than the females he is mated to is sound business sense and gives better results in the progeny than if the cockerel were of the same grade as the females. This method of mating can be followed for an unlimited time if the proper breeding foundation was secured at the beginning. . . ... ■ Line-breeding of utility birds is much different from line-breeding for purely exhibition purposes, when quality of feather, head points, breed characteristics, etc., are considered of more account than heavy laying. Heavy laying is determined by vigour and stamina, with no in-bred prepotency in egg quantity and egg size. Heavy laying strain attached to any breed is, therefore, a matter of opinion of any breeder who aims at a certain flock average, according to the variety of fowl he is developing for heavy egg-laying competitions. EGG-LAYING CONTEST MASSEY COLLEGE RESULTS The forty-eighth week's results of the egg-laying contest being conducted at Massey College are as follows: — SINGLE PENS. Section B.—Mrs R. Willers, 8.0., (3) 280 x; L. Mason, R.1.R., No. 2 (1) 263; W. A. Larsen, A. 0., (0 ) 250; K. Mullins R.1.R., (3) 234; S. T. Bason, Lang., No. 1 (6) 223; L. Mason, R.1.R., No. 1 (1) 217; E. H. Berger, 8.0., (6) 211; S. T. Bason, Lang., No. 3 (0 ) 204; Mrs. M. M. Chapman, W.W., (3) 190; S. T. Bason, Lang., No. 2 (6) 185; S. Wilkinson, R.1.R., 175 d; J. D. Rowlands, R.1.R., (0) 173; and T. Dowthwaite, 8.0., (5) 152. Section A.—F. S. Allen, W.L., No. 3

(5) 281; F. S. Allen, W.L., No. 4 (6) 281 x; J. A. Annan, W.L., (5) 278; A. G. Mumby, W.L., No. 2 (5) 271; Ancona Stud P.F., W.L., (4) 265; Mrs. M. M. Chapman, W.L., No. 1 (6 ) 260; A. G. Mumby, W.L., No. 3 (0) 253; W. F. Stent, W.L., No. 2 (5) 244; T. E. Ker, W.L., No. 2 (3) 239; P. Mummery, Min., (4) 235; F. S. Allen, W.L., No. 1 (3) 232 x; F. S. Allen, W.L., No. 2 (4) 231; F. Ecob, W.L., No. 1 (4) 226; A. A. Hoare, W.L., No. 2 (5 ) 220; A. G. Mumby, W.L., No. 1 (0) 215; A. A. Hoare, W.L., No. 1 (4) 208; W, F. Stent, W.L., No. 3 (6) 198; Mrs. M. M. Chapman, W.L., No. 2 (0) 193; F. Ecob, W.L., No. 4 192 d; F. Ecob, W.L., No. 3 (3) 187; A. G. Mumby, W.L., No. 2 (0) 160; H. Polson, W.L., (0> 144; T. E. Ker, W.L., No. 1 (0) 121 r; and W. F. Stent, W.L., No. 1 (0) 116.

TEAMS RESULTS. Section D. W. A. Larsen, A. 0.: 273, 259, 297, 227, 239, 285 (23) 1580. E. W. Stephenson, A. 0.: 210, 229, 224, 196, 202, 234 x (13) 1295. L. G. Hooper, B.O.: 211, 202 x, 148, 262. 228, 217 ( 27) 1268. G. A. Edge, R.1.R.: 194, 115 d, 240, 261, 225, 156 d (10) 1191. Miss E. T. Somer, R.1.R.: 165 x, 171. 221, 231, 190 x, 184 (9) 1162. Section C. J. Wilson, W.L.: 241, 252, 262, 281, 253, 270 (31) 1559. F. S. Allen, W.L.: 269, 229 x, 272, 267 x, 218, 231 (24) 1486. J. Mold, W.L.: 222, 258, 258 x, 246, 240, 247 (26) 1471. F. Ecob, W.L.: 293, 196 r, 236, 255, 249, 211 (27) 1440. Cotswold P.F., W.L.: 159 d. 189 r, 249, 238, 256, 282 (14) 1373. H. A. Lucas, W.L.: 293 , 256, 251, 242 r, 161, 145 d (22) 1348. r, Replacement, d, Bird dead, x, Disqualified because of egg-weight clause.