THE FOWL-YARD.
The scarcity of poultry in this country partly arises from all
gallinaceous birds requiring warmth and dryness to keep them in perfect
health, while the climate of Great Britain is naturally moist and cold.
"The warmest and driest soils," says Mowbray, "are the best adapted to
the breeding and rearing of gallinaceous fowls, more particularly
chickens. A wet soil is the worst, since, however ill affected fowls are
by cold, they endure it better than moisture. Land proper for sheep is
generally also adapted to the successful keeping of poultry and
rabbits."
But poultry may be reared and kept successfully even on bad soils with
good drainage and attention. The "Henwife" says: "I do not consider any
one soil necessary for success in rearing poultry. Some think a chalk
soil essential for Dorkings, but I have proved the fallacy of this
opinion by bringing up, during three years, many hundreds of these _soi
disant_ delicate birds on the strong blue clay of the Carse of Gowrie,
doubtless thoroughly drained, that system being well understood and
universally practised by the farmers of the district. A coating of
gravel and sand once a year is all that is requisite to secure the
necessary dryness in the runs." The best soil for a poultry-yard is
gravel, or sand resting on chalk or gravel. When the soil is clayey, or
damp from any other cause, it should be thoroughly drained, and the
whole or a good portion of the ground should be raised by the addition
of twelve inches of chalk, or bricklayer's rubbish, over which should be
spread a few inches of sand. Cramp, roup, and some other diseases, more
frequently arise from stagnant wet in the soil than from any other
cause.
The yard should be sheltered from the north and east winds, and where
this is effected by the position of a shrubbery or plantation in which
the fowls may be allowed to run, it will afford the advantage of
protection, not only from wind and cold, but also shelter from the rain
and the burning sun. It also furnishes harbourage for insects, which
will find them both food and exercise in picking up. Indeed, for all
these purposes a few bushes may be advantageously planted in or
adjoining any poultry-yard. When a tree can be enclosed in a run, it
forms an agreeable object for the eye, and affords shelter to the fowls.
A covered run or shed for shelter in wet or hot weather is a great
advantage, especially if chickens are reared. It may be constructed with
a few rough poles supporting a roof of patent felt, thatch, or rough
board, plain or painted for preservation, and may be made of any length
and width, from four feet upwards, and of any height from four feet at
the back and three feet in the front, to eight feet at the back and six
feet in the front. The shed should, if possible, adjoin the fowl-house.
It should be wholly or partly enclosed with wire-work, which should be
boarded for a foot from the ground to keep out the wet and snow, and to
keep in small chickens. The roof should project a foot beyond the
uprights which support it, in order to throw the rain well off, and have
a gutter-shoot to carry it away and prevent it from being blown in upon
the enclosed space. The floor should be a little higher than the level
of the yard, both in order to keep it dry and the easier to keep it
clean; and it should be higher at the back than in the front, which will
keep it drained if any wet should be blown in or water upset. If
preferred, moveable netting may be used, so that the fowls can be
allowed their liberty in fine weather, and be confined in wet weather.
But the boarding must be retained to keep out the wet. The ground may be
left in its natural state for the fowls to scratch in, in which case the
surface should be dug up from time to time and replaced with fresh earth
pressed down moderately hard. If the house is large and has a good
window, a shed is not absolutely necessary, especially for a few fowls
only, but it is a valuable addition, and is also very useful to shelter
the coops of the mother hens and their young birds in wet, windy, or hot
weather.
By daily attention to cleanliness, a few fowls may be kept in such a
covered shed, without having any open run, by employing a thick layer of
dry pulverised earth as a deodoriser, which is to be turned over with a
rake every day, and replaced with fresh dry pulverised earth once a
week. The dry earth entirely absorbs all odour. In a run of this kind,
six square feet should be allowed to each fowl kept, for a smaller
surface of the dry earth becomes moist and will then no longer deodorise
the dung. Sifted ashes spread an inch deep over the floor of the whole
shed will be a good substitute if the dry earth cannot be had. They
should be raked over every other morning, and renewed at least every
fortnight, or oftener if possible. The ground should be dug and turned
over whenever it looks sodden, or gives out any offensive smell; and
three or four times a year the polluted soil below the layer, that is,
the earth to the depth of three or four inches, should be removed and
replaced with fresh earth, gravel, chalk, or ashes.[2] The shed must be
so contrived that the sun can shine upon the fowls during some part of
the day, or they will not continue in health for any length of time, and
it is almost impossible to rear healthy chickens without its light and
warmth; and it will be a great improvement if part of the run is open.
Another shed will be required if chickens are to be reared.
Fowls that are kept in small spaces or under covered runs will require a
different diet to those that are allowed to roam in fields and pick up
insects, grass, &c., and must be provided with green food, animal food
in place of insects, and be well supplied with mortar rubbish and
gravel.
The height of the wall, paling, or fencing that surrounds the yard, and
of the partitions, if the yard is divided into compartments for the
purpose of keeping two or more breeds separate and pure, must be
according to the nature of the breed. Three feet in height will be
sufficient to retain Cochins and Brahmas; six feet will be required for
moderate-sized fowls; and eight or nine feet will be necessary to
confine the Game, Hamburg, and Bantam breeds. Galvanised iron
wire-netting is the best material, as it does not rust, and will not
need painting for a long time. It is made of various degrees of
strength, and in different forms, and may be had with meshes varying
from three-fourths of an inch to two inches or more; with very small
meshes at the lower part only, to keep out rats and to keep in chickens;
with spikes upon the top, or with scolloped wire-work, which gives it a
neat and finished appearance; with doors, and with iron standards
terminating in double spikes to fix in the ground, by which wooden posts
are divided, while it can be easily fixed and removed. The meshes should
not be more than two inches wide, and if the meshes of the lower part
are not very small, it should be boarded to about two feet six inches
from the ground, in order to keep out rats, keep in chickens, and to
prevent the cocks fighting through the wire, which fighting is more
dangerous than in the open, for the birds are very liable to injure
themselves in the meshes, and, Dorkings especially, to tear their combs
and toes in them. If iron standards are not attached to the netting, it
should be stretched to stout posts, well fixed in the ground, eight feet
apart, and fastened by galvanised iron staples. A rail at the top gives
a neater appearance, but induces the fowls to perch upon it, which may
tempt them to fly over.
Where it is not convenient to fix a fence sufficiently high, or when a
hen just out with her brood has to be kept in, a fowl may be prevented
from flying over fences by stripping off the vanes or side shoots from
the first-flight feathers of one wing, usually ten in number, which will
effectually prevent the bird from flying, and will not be unsightly, as
the primary quills are always tucked under the others when not used for
flying. This method answers much better than clipping the quills of each
wing, as the cut points are liable to inflict injuries and cause
irritation in moulting.
The openness of the feathers of fowls which do not throw off the water
well, like those of most birds, enables them to cleanse themselves
easier from insects and dirt, by dusting their feathers, and then
shaking off the dirt and these minute pests with the dust. For this
purpose one or more ample heaps of sifted ashes, or very dry sand or
earth, for them to roll in, must be placed in the sun, and, if possible,
under shelter, so as to be warm and perfectly dry. Wood ashes are the
best. This dust-heap is as necessary to fowls as water for washing is to
human beings. It cleanses their feathers and skin from vermin and
impurities, promotes the cuticular or skin excretion, and is materially
instrumental in preserving their health. If they should be much troubled
with insects, mix in the heap plenty of wood ashes and a little flour of
sulphur.
A good supply of old mortar-rubbish, or similar substance, must be kept
under the shed, or in a dry place, to provide material for the
eggshells, or the hens will be liable to lay soft-shelled eggs. Burnt
oyster-shells are an excellent substitute for common lime, and should be
prepared for use by being heated red-hot, and when cold broken into
small pieces with the fingers, but not powdered. Some give chopped or
ground bones, or a lump of chalky marl. Eggshells roughly crushed are
also good, and are greedily devoured by the hens.
A good supply of gravel is also essential, the small stones which the
fowls swallow being necessary to enable them to digest their hard food.
Fowls swallow all grain whole, their bills not being adapted for
crushing it like the teeth of the rabbit or the horse, and it is
prepared for digestion by the action of a strong and muscular gizzard,
lined with a tough leathery membrane, which forms a remarkable
peculiarity in the internal structure of fowls and turkeys. "By the
action," says Mr. W. H. L. Martin, "of the two thick muscular sides of
this gizzard on each other, the seeds and grains swallowed (and
previously macerated in the crop, and there softened by a peculiar
secretion oozing from glandular pores) are ground up, or triturated in
order that their due digestion may take place. It is a remarkable fact
that these birds are in the habit of swallowing small pebbles, bits of
gravel, and similar substances, which it would seem are essential to
their health. The definite use of these substances, which are certainly
ground down by the mill-like action of the gizzard, has been a matter
of difference among various physiologists, and many experiments, with a
view to elucidate the subject, have been undertaken. It was sufficiently
proved by Spallanzani that the digestive fluid was incapable of
dissolving grains of barley, &c., in their unbruised state; and this he
ascertained by filling small hollow and perforated balls and tubes of
metal or glass with grain, and causing them to be swallowed by turkeys
and other fowls; when examined, after twenty-four and forty-eight hours,
the grains were found to be unaffected by the gastric fluid; but when he
filled similar balls and tubes with bruised grains, and caused them to
be swallowed, he found, after a lapse of the same number of hours, that
they were more or less dissolved by the action of the gastric juice. In
other experiments, he found that metallic tubes introduced into the
gizzard of common fowls and turkeys, were bruised, crushed, and
distorted, and even that sharp-cutting instruments were broken up into
blunt fragments without having produced the slightest injury to the
gizzard. But these experiments go rather to prove the extraordinary
force and grinding powers of the gizzard, than to throw light upon the
positive use of the pebbles swallowed; which, after all, Spallanzani
thought were swallowed without any definite object, but from mere
stupidity. Blumenbach and Dr. Bostock aver that fowls, however well
supplied with food, grow lean without them, and to this we can bear our
own testimony. Yet the question, what is their precise effect? remains
to be answered. Boerhave thought it probable that they might act as
absorbents to superabundant acid; others have regarded them as irritants
or stimulants to digestion; and Borelli supposed that they might really
contribute some degree of nutriment."
Sir Everard Home, in his "Comparative Anatomy," says: "When the external
form of this organ is first attentively examined, viewing that side
which is anterior in the living bird, and on which the two bellies of
the muscle and middle are more distinct, there being no other part to
obstruct the view, the belly of the muscle on the left side is seen to
be larger than on the right. This appears, on reflection, to be of great
advantage in producing the necessary motion; for if the two muscles were
of equal strength, they must keep a greater degree of exertion than is
necessary; while, in the present case, the principal effect is produced
by that of the left side, and a smaller force is used by that on the
right to bring the parts back again. The two bellies of the muscle, by
their alternate action, produce two effects--the one a constant friction
on the contents of the cavity; the other, a pressure on them. This last
arises from a swelling of the muscle inwards, which readily explains all
the instances which have been given by Spallanzani and others, of the
force of the gizzard upon substances introduced into it--a force which
is found by their experiments always to act in an oblique direction. The
internal cavity, when opened in this distended state, is found to be of
an oval form, the long diameter being in the line of the body; its
capacity nearly equal to the size of a pullet's egg; and on the sides
there are ridges in their horny coat (lining membrane) in the long
direction of the oval. When the horny coat is examined in its internal
structure, the fibres of which it is formed are not found in a direction
perpendicular to the ligamentous substance behind it; but in the upper
portion of the cavity it is obliquely upwards. From this form of cavity
it is evident that no part of the sides is ever intended to be brought
in contact, and that the food is triturated by being mixed with hard
bodies, and acted on by the powerful muscles which form the gizzard."
The experiments of Spallanzani show that the muscular action of the
gizzard is equally powerful whether the small stones are present or not;
and that they are not at all necessary to the trituration of the firmest
food, or the hardest foreign substances; but it is also quite clear that
when these small stones are put in motion by the muscles of the gizzard
they assist in crushing the grain, and at the same time prevent it from
consolidating into a thick, heavy, compacted mass, which would take a
far longer time in undergoing the digestive process than when separated
and intermingled with the pebbles.
This was the opinion of the great physiologist, John Hunter, who, in his
treatise "On the Animal Economy," after noticing the grinding powers of
the gizzard, says, in reference to the pebbles swallowed, "We are not,
however, to conclude that stones are entirely useless; for if we compare
the strength of the muscles of the jaws of animals which masticate their
food with those of birds who do not, we shall say that the parts are
well calculated for the purpose of mastication; yet we are not thence to
infer that the teeth in such jaws are useless, even although we have
proof that the gums do the business when the teeth are gone. If pebbles
are of use, which we may reasonably conclude they are, birds have an
advantage over animals having teeth, so far as pebbles are always to be
found, while the teeth are not renewed. If we constantly find in an
organ substances which can only be subservient to the functions of that
organ, should we deny their use, although the part can do its office
without them? The stones assist in grinding down the grain, and, by
separating its parts, allow the gastric juice to come more readily in
contact with it."
When a paddock is used as a run for a large number of poultry, it should
be enclosed either by a wall or paling, but not by a hedge, as the fowls
can get through it, and will also lay their eggs under the hedge. The
paddock should be well drained, and it will be a great advantage if it
contains a pond, or has a stream of water running through or by it.
Mowbray advises that the grass run should be sown "with common trefoil
or wild clover, with a mixture of burnet, spurry, or storgrass," which
last two kinds "are particularly salubrious to poultry." If the grass is
well rooted before the fowls are allowed to run on it, they may range
there for several hours daily, according to its extent and their number,
but it should be renewed in the spring by sowing where it has become
bare or thin. A dry common, or pasture fields, in which they may freely
wander and pick up grubs, insects, ants' eggs, worms, and leaves of
plants, is a great advantage, and they may be accustomed to return from
it at a call. Where there is a cropped field, orchard, or garden, in
which fowls may roam at certain seasons, when the crops are safe from
injury, each brood should be allowed to wander in it separately for a
few hours daily, or on different days, as may be most convenient. "A
garden dung-heap," says Mr. Baily, "overgrown with artichokes, mallows,
&c., is an excellent covert for chickens, especially in hot weather.
They find shelter and meet with many insects there." When horse-dung is
procured for the garden, or supplied from your stables, some should be
placed in a small trench, and frequently renewed, in which the fowls
will amuse themselves, particularly in winter, by scraping for corn and
worms. When fowls have not the advantage of a grass run they should be
indulged with a square or two of fresh turf, as often as it can be
obtained, on which they will feed and amuse themselves. It should be
heavy enough to enable them to tear off the grass, without being obliged
to drag the turf about with them.