directly from the producer is that premium offered on the goods
tempts the farmer to go out and buy up eggs from his neighbors. This
brings disastrous results in the quality of the goods and the farmer
must be dropped from the list. In order to make a success, a system
of buying directly from producers must be based upon a grading
scheme that will pay for the actual quality of the eggs. No fear
then need be exercised as to whether the farmer sells his own eggs
or those of his neighbor.
The following extract from Farmer's Bulletin 128 of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture has been used as advertising "dope" in the
sale of high grade eggs:
"Under certain conditions eggs may be the cause of illness by
communicating some bacterial disease or some parasite. It is
possible for an egg to become infected with micro-organisms, either
before it is laid or after. The shell is porous, and offers no
greater resistance to micro-organisms which cause disease than it
does to those which cause the egg to spoil or rot. When the infected
egg is eaten raw the microorganisms, if present, are communicated to
man and may cause disease. If an egg remains in a dirty nest,
defiled with the micro-organisms which cause typhoid fever, carried
there on the hen's feet or feathers, it is not strange if some of
these bacteria occasionally penetrate the shell and the egg thus
becomes a possible source of infection. Perhaps one of the most
common troubles due to bacterial infection of eggs is the more or
less serious illness sometimes caused by eating those which are
'stale.' This often resembles ptomaine poisoning, which is caused,
not by micro-organisms themselves, but by the poisonous products
which they elaborate from materials on which they grow.
"In view of this possibility, it is best to keep eggs as clean as
possible and thus endeavor to prevent infection. Clean
poultry-houses, poultry-runs and nests are important, and eggs
should always be stored and marketed under sanitary conditions. The
subject of handling food in a cleanly manner is given entirely too
little attention."
The reprint upon the succeeding pages will give some idea of the
advertising literature used in selling high grade eggs. This is a
copy of a hand-bill inserted in the egg boxes of a prominent Chicago
dealer:
* * * * *
MOORE'S BREAKFAST EGGS
are guaranteed to be perfect in quality when you receive them
and to remain so until all eaten up. If for any reason they
are not satisfactory return the Eggs to your dealer and get
your money back.
(Signature.)
WE URGE YOU
to assist us in our endeavor to furnish you at all times with
the finest Eggs by being careful to
KEEP THEM DRY
A damp "filler" will in 24 hours make the finest fresh Eggs
taste like old Cold Storage Eggs.
The flavor of an Egg cannot be detected even by the powerful
electric lights used to inspect every Egg in this package,
so it might be possible for a "strong" Egg to get by our inspectors,
but in the past the cause of nearly every complaint
has been traced to the consumer's ice box or pantry window
sill.
REMEMBER
Eggs are 25c-40c per doz. retail only when fine Eggs are
scarce. Ordinarily we can get a sufficient supply from the
farmers bringing milk daily to the creameries where we make
Delicia Pure Cream Butter, but in times of scarcity we often
have to go as far as Oklahoma, Arkansas or Tennessee to find
the best Eggs. These are not equal to our creamery Eggs but
are the freshest and best to be had and are vastly superior to
the old Cold Storage Eggs that flood the market at such times.
Be Sure This Seal is Unbroken When You Get the Eggs
W. S. MOORE & CO.,
Chicago Office--131 South Water Street.
Buying Eggs By Weight.
Whenever an improved method of buying is installed, eggs should be
bought of the producer by weight. As far as selling to the consumer
is concerned, the present scheme is more feasible; this scheme is to
grade according to the size and other qualities, and sell by the
dozen, the price per dozen varying according to the grade.
Buying by weight simplifies the problem of grading. It will, in
addition, only be necessary to have a fine of so much for eggs that
are wrong in quality. For rotten or heated eggs should be deducted
an amount considerably in excess of their value, for their presence
is a source of danger to the reputation of the brand. Shrunken eggs
are hard to classify. In order that this may be done fairly and
uniformly the specific gravity or brine test should be used. All
eggs that float in a given salt brine of, say, 1.05 specific gravity
should be fined. Two or more grades can be made in this fashion if
desired.
The Retailing of Eggs by the Producer.
In poultry papers the poultryman has been commonly advised to get
near a large city and retail his own eggs at a fancy price. This
sounds all right on paper but in practice it works out differently.
A man cannot be in two places or do two things at the same time. The
poultryman's time is valuable on his plant, and the question is
whether he can handle city sales as well as a man who made it his
business. If the poultryman tries to retail his own goods he will be
working on too small a scale to advertise his goods or to make
deliveries economically. The man making a specialty of the city end
can sell ten to a hundred times as much produce as one poultryman
can produce.
With a group of poultry farmers working co-operatively, or a large
corporation having contracts with producers, the producing and
selling end can be brought under the same management advantageously.
The isolated poultryman, unless he find a market at his very door,
will do better to permit at least one middleman to slip in between
himself and the consumer. But there is no reason why he should not
know this middleman personally and insist upon a method of buying
that will pay him upon the merits of his goods.
Consigning eggs or any other produce to commission men, without a
definite understanding, will always be, as it always has been, a
source of dissatisfaction and loss. There is a great opportunity
here for the man who can organize a system that shall do away with
commission houses, other intermediate steps, and form the single
step from producer to consumer. Some people say that farmers cannot
be dealt with in this manner. Such people would probably have said
as much about general merchandising before the days of the mail
order houses.
It is all a matter of efficient organization. A system of business
fitted to deal in carload lots will, of course, fail when dealing
with half cases. It is more difficult to deal in little things than
in big ones because the margin is closer, but it can and will be
done.
The Price of Eggs.
We will consider the price of all eggs from the quotation of Western
firsts in the New York market. The reason for this is evident. Every
egg raised east of Colorado is in line for shipment to New York. If
other towns get eggs they must pay sufficiently to keep them from
going to New York.
In pricing eggs we have first to consider the price of Western
firsts in New York and secondly the quality relation of the
particular grade to Western firsts and the consequent relation in
price.
The price of eggs varies with the price of other commodities as the
periods of prosperity and adversity follow one another through the
years.
As is well known, all prices in the '90's passed through a period of
depression. For eggs this reached a base in 1897. Since then there
has been a gradual climb till this realized a high point in 1904,
remained high till 1907. In the spring of 1908 egg prices dropped
again, but the fall prices of 1908 were exceptionally high. As this
work goes to press (May, 1909) eggs are going into storage at the
highest May price on record.
The prices of eggs also vary independently of other commodities
because of a gradual changing relation between production and
consumption. As stated in the first chapter the prices of poultry
products have shown a general rise when compared with other
articles. This has been most marked since 1900. As for the future we
cannot prophesy save to say that there is nothing in sight to lead
us to believe that we will not go still higher in egg prices.
A third variation in the price of eggs is the one caused by the
seasonal relation of production and consumption. This change is from
year to year fairly constant. Its normal may be seen in the
scientifically smoothed curve in plate IV. This curve is based upon
the New York prices for the last eighteen years.
In addition to these broader influences there are disturbing
tendencies that cause the market to fluctuate back and forth across
the line where the more general influences would place it.
Of those general factors, weather is the most important. Storms,
rain and cold in the egg producing region decrease the lay, lower
supplies and raise the price. This is due both to the fact that
laying is cut down and that the country roads become impassable and
the farmers do not bring the eggs to town. As long as there are
storage eggs in the warehouses weather conditions are not so
effective, but when these are gone, which is usually about the first
of the year, the egg market becomes highly sensitive to all weather
changes. Suppose late in February storms and snows force up the
price of eggs. This is followed by a warm spell which starts the
March lay. The roads, meanwhile, are in a quagmire from melting
snows. When they do dry up eggs come to town by the wagon loads. A
drop of ten cents or more may occur on such occasions within a day
or two's time. This is known as the spring drop and for one to get
caught with eggs on hand means heavy losses.
When once eggs have suffered this drop to the spring level or the
storage price for the season, the prices for April, May and June
will remain fairly steady. About the last week in June the summer
climb begins. This goes on very steadily with local variation of
about the same as those of the spring months. The storage eggs begin
to come out in August and at first sell about the same as fresh. As
the season advances the fresh product continues to rise in price.
The storage egg price will remain fairly uniform. By November the season
of high prices is reached. If storage eggs are still plentiful and the
weather is mild sudden variations in price may occur. These are caused
by a fear that the storage eggs will not all be consumed before spring.
If an oversupply of eggs have been stored a warm spell in winter will
make a heavy drop in the market, but if storage eggs are scarce the
sudden variations will be up-shots due to cold waves. From November
until spring egg prices are a creature of the weather maps and sudden
jumps from 5 to 10 cents may occur at any time.
[Illustration: Plate IV. Page 159. Graphs of egg prices and volume
of egg sales as they vary throughout the year.]
The price curve of 1908, which is represented by the dotted line in
plate IV will illustrate these general principles. In the lower
portion of plate IV is given the curves for the New York receipts.
The heavy line represents the smoothed or normal curve, deduced from
eighteen years' statistics and calculated for the year 1908. The
dotted line shows the actual receipts of 1908. A comparison week by
week of the receipts and price will show the detailed workings of
the law of supply and demand.
Aside from the weather there are other factors that perceptibly
affect the receipts and price of eggs. A high price of meat will
increase farm and village consumption of eggs and cut down the
receipts that reach the city. Abundance of fruit in the city market
will cut down the demand for eggs. A cold, wet spring will increase
the mortality of chicks and cause a decreased egg yield the
following season, due to a scarcity of pullets. Scarcity and high
price of feed will cut down the egg yield. High price of hens is
said by some to cut down the egg yield, but I think this is
doubtful, as the impulse to sell off the hens is counteracted by the
desire to "keep 'em and raise more."
The following are the quotations taken from the New York
Price-Current for November 14, 1908:
State, Pennsylvania and nearby fresh eggs continue in very small
supply and of more or less irregular quality, a good many being
mixed with held eggs--sometimes with pickled stock. The few new laid
lots received direct from henneries command extreme
prices--sometimes working out in a small way above any figures that
could fairly be quoted as a wholesale value. We quote: Selected
white, fancy, 48@50c.; do., fair to choice, 35@46c.; do., lower
grades, 26@32c.; brown and mixed, fancy, 38@40c.; do., fair to
choice, 30@36c; do., lower grades, 25@28c.
N.Y. Mercantile Exchange Official Quotations.
Fresh gathered, extras, per dozen @37
Fresh gathered, firsts 32 @33
Fresh gathered, seconds 29 @31
Fresh gathered, thirds 25 @28
Dirties, No. 1 21 @22
Dirties, No. 2 18 @20
Dirties, inferior 12 @17
Checks, fresh gathered, fair to prime 18 @20
Checks, inferior 12 @16
Refrigerator, firsts, charges paid for season 24 @24-1/2
Refrigerator, firsts, on dock 23 @23-1/2
Refrigerator, seconds, charges paid for season 22-1/2 @23-1/2
Refrigerator, seconds, on dock 21-1/2 @22-1/2
Refrigerator, thirds 20 @21
Limed, firsts 22-1/2 @23
Limed, seconds 21 @22
The writer was in the New York market at the time and saw many cases
of White Leghorn eggs sell wholesale at as high as 55 cents. These
were commonly retailed at 5 cents each. There were a good many
brands retailing at 65 cents and one of the largest high class
groceries was selling for 70 cents. This is practically double the
official quotations and three times that of cold storage stock.
The above prices represent a fair sample of the fall prices of 1908.
It should be noted that the 1908 fall prices were relatively
somewhat better than the rest of the season.
The time of high prices is also the time of the greatest variation
in the price of the different grades. In the springtime all eggs are
fairly fresh and good, and the fanciest eggs bring wholesale only
two or three cents above quotations. There are a few retailers who
hold the spring prices to their customers up above the general
market. One New York firm that does a large high class egg business
never lets their price at any season go below 40 cents. This, of
course, means big profits and sales only to those who, when they are
satisfied, never bother about price.
In the fall any man who has fresh eggs can sell them at very near
the highest price, but in the spring only a small per cent. can go
at fancy prices and the great majority of even the high grade eggs
must go at very ordinary prices. In the summer months there is not
so much demand in the cities, as the wealthy are not there to buy.
The coast and mountain resorts are then good markets for fancy
produce.
CHAPTER XIII
BREEDS OF CHICKENS
I do not place much dependence on the results of breed tests.
Indeed, I consider the almost universal use of the Barred Rock in
the most productive farm poultry regions in the United States, and
the equal predominance of S.C. White Leghorns on the egg farms of
New York and California, as far more conclusive than any possible
breed tests.
Breed Tests.
In Australia there has been conducted a series of breed tests so
remarkable and extensive that the writer considers them well worth
quoting. The Hawkesbury Agricultural College tests extend over a
period of five years, the pens entered were of six birds each, and
the time one year. The results were as follows:
No. of Pens Yield of Average Yield
Competing Highest Pen of All Pens
1903 ... 70 218 163
1904 ... 100 204 152
1905 ... 100 235 162
1906 ... 100 247 177
1907 ... 60 245 173
The winners and losers for five years were as follows:
Winning Pen Losing Pen
1903 Silver Wyandotte Silver Wyandotte
1904 Silver Wyandotte Partridge Wyandotte
1905 S.C.W. Leghorns S.C.W. Leghorns
1906 Black Langshans Golden Wyandotte
1907 S.C.W. Leghorns S.C.B. Leghorns
As a matter of fact, the winning pen means little for breed
comparison. This is shown by the winning and losing pens frequently
being of the same breed.
The average for hens of one breed for the whole five years is more
enlightening. For the three most popular Australian breeds, these
grand averages are:
Average Av. Wt. Eggs.
No. Hens Egg Yield Oz. Per Doz.
S.C.W. Leghorns ... 564 175.5 26.4
Black Orpingtons ... 522 166.6 26.1
Silver Wyandottes ... 474 161.1 24.9
These figures are undoubtedly the most trustworthy breed comparisons
that have ever been obtained. When we go into the other breeds,
however, with smaller numbers entered, the results show chance
variation and become untrustworthy, for illustration: R.C. Brown
Leghorns, with 42 birds entered, have an average of 176.4. This does
not signify that the R.C. Browns are better than the S.S. Whites,
for if the Whites were divided by chance into a dozen lots of
similar size, some would undoubtedly have surpassed the R.C. Browns.
As further proof, take the case of the R.C.W. Leghorns with 36 birds
entered and an egg yield of 166.9. Both breeds are probably a little
poorer layers than S.C. Whites, but luck was with the R.C. Browns
and against the R.C. Whites. For a discussion of this principle of
the worth of averages from different sized flocks see Chapter XV.
All Leghorns in the tests with 846 birds entered, averaged 170.3
eggs each. All of the general purpose breeds (Rocks, Wyandottes,
Reds and Orpingtons), with 1416 birds entered, averaged 160.2. The
comparison between the Leghorns and the general purpose fowls as
classes is undoubtedly a fair one. A study of the relations between
the leading breeds in these groups and the general average of these
groups is worth while. It bears out the writer's statement that the
best fowls of a group or breed are to be found in the popular
variety of that breed. The Australian poultryman, wanting utility
only, would do wise to choose out of the three great Australian
breeds here mentioned. The S.C.W. Leghorn is the only one of the
three breeds to which the advice would apply in America. Barred
Rocks and perhaps White Wyandottes, would here represent the other
types.
There is one more point in the Australian records worthy of especial
mention. The winning pen in 1906 were Black Langshans and, what
seems still more remarkable, were daughters of birds purchased from
the original home of Langshans in North China. Other pens of
Langshans in the test failed to make remarkable records, but this
pen of Chinese stock, with a record of 246 5-6* eggs per hen for the
first year and 414 1-2* eggs per hen for two years, is the world's
record layers beyond all quibble. This record is held by a breed and
a region in which we would not expect to find great layers.
This holding of the record by a breed hitherto not considered a
laying type, would be comparable to a tenderfoot bagging the pots in
an Arizona gambling den. If the latter incident should occur and be
heralded in the papers it would be no proof that it would pay
another Eastern youth to rush out to Arizona. It is probable that
the man who, on the strength of this single record, stocks an egg
farm with imported Chinese Langshans, will fare as the second
tenderfoot.
The year following the Langshan winning, the first eleven winning
pens were all S.C.W. Leghorns. This is also remarkable--much more
remarkable in fact than the Langshans record. It is like a royal
flush in a poker game. Standing alone, this would be very suggestive
evidence of the eminence of the breed. Standing as it does, with the
combined evidence of years and numbers, it gives the S.C.W. Leghorn
hen the same reputation in Australia as she has in America and
Denmark--that of being the greatest egg machine ever created.
Isolated evidence is misleading. Accumulated evidence is convincing.
The difference between the scientist and the enthusiast is that the
former knows the difference between these two classes of evidence.
The Hen's Ancestors.
To one who is unfamiliar with the different types of chickens found
in a poultry showroom, it seems incredible that these varieties
should have descended from one parent source. It was, however, held
by Darwin that all domestic chickens were sprung from a single
species of Indian jungle fowl. Other scientists have since disputed
Darwin's conclusion, but it does not seem to the writer that the
origin of domestic fowls from more than one wild variety makes the
changes that have taken place under domestication any less
remarkable.
The buff, white and dominique colors, unheard of in wild species,
frizzles with their feathers all awry, the Polish with their
deformed skulls and the sooty fowls whose skin and bones are black,
are some of the remarkable characters that have sprung up and been
preserved under domestication. The varieties of domestic fowl form
one of the most profound exhibits of man's control over the laws of
inheritance. What makes these wonders all the more inexplicable is
that these profound changes were accomplished in an age when a
scientific study of breeding was a thing unheard of.
The wild chicken whom Darwin credits as the parent of the modern
gallinaceous menagerie, is smaller than modern fowls and is colored
in a manner similar to the Black-breasted Game. The habits of this
bird are like those of the quail and prairie-chicken, both of which
belong to the same zoological family.
From its natural home in India the chicken spread east and west.
Chinese poultry culture is ancient. In China, as well as in India,
the chief care seems to have been to breed very large fowls, and
from these countries all the large, heavily feathered and feather
legged chickens of the modern world have come.
Poultry is also known to have been bred in the early Babylonian and
Egyptian periods. Here, however, the progress was in a different
line from that of China. Artificial incubation was early developed,
and the selection was for birds that produced eggs continually,
rather than for those that laid fewer eggs and brooded in the
natural manner.
The Egyptian type of chicken spread to the countries bordering on
the Mediterranean, and from Southern Europe our non-sitting breeds
of fowls have been imported. Throughout the countries of Northern
Europe minor differences were developed. The French chickens were
selected for the quality of the meat, while in Poland the peculiar
top-knotted breed is supposed to have been formed.
The English Dorking is one of the oldest of European breeds and is
possessed of five toes. Five-toed fowls were reported in Rome and
exist to-day in Turkey and Japan. The Dorkings may be descended
directly from the Roman fowls, or various strains of five-toed fowls
may have arisen independently from the preservation of sports.
The chief point to be noted in all European poultry is that it
differs from Asiatic poultry in being smaller, lighter feathered,
quicker maturing, of greater egg-producing capacity, less disposed
to become broody, and more active than the Asiatic fowl.
The early American hens were of European origin, but of no fixed
breeds. About 1840 Italian chickens began to be imported. These,
with stock from Spain, have been bred for fixed types of form and
color, and constitute our Mediterranean or non-sitting breeds of the
present day. Soon after the importation of Italian chickens a chance
importation was made from Southeastern Asia. These Asiatic chickens
were quite different from anything yet seen, and further
importations followed.
Poultry-breeding soon became the fashion. The first poultry show was
held in Boston in the early '50's. The Asiatic fowls imported were
gray or yellowish-red in color, and were variously known as the
Brahmapootras, Cochin-Chinas and Shanghais. With the rapid
development of poultry-breeding there came a desire to produce new
varieties. Every conceivable form of cross-breeding was resorted to.
The great majority of breeds and varieties as they exist to-day are
the results of crosses followed by a few years of selection for the
desired form and color. Many of our common breeds still give us
occasional individuals that resemble some of the types from which
the breed was formed. The exact history of the formation of the
American or mixed breeds is in dispute, but it is certain that they
have been formed from a complex mixing of blood from both European
and Asiatic sources.
The English have recently furnished the world with a very popular
breed which was originated by the same methods. I refer to the
Orpingtons.
The ever growing multiplicity of varieties of chicken is in reality
only casually related to the business of the poultryman whose object
is the production of human food.
Breeding as an art or vocation, is a source of endless pleasure to
man, and as such, is as worthy of encouragement as is painting,
music, or the collection of the bones of prehistoric animals.
Breeding as an art has produced many forms of chickens that are
entirely worthless as food producers, but this same group of poultry
breeders, tempered to be sure by the demands of commercialism, have
produced other breeds that are certainly superior for the various
commercial purposes to the unselected fowls of the old-fashioned
farm-yard.
The mongrel chicken is a production of chance. Its ancestry
represents everything available in the barn-yard of the
neighborhood, and its offspring will be equally varied. In the pure
breeds there has been a rigid selection practiced that gives uniform
appearance. The size and shape requirements of the standard,
although not based on the market demands, come much nearer producing
an ideal carcass than does chance breeding. Ability to mature for
the fall shows is a decidedly practical quality that the fancier
breeds into his chickens. Moreover, poultry-breeders, while still
keeping standard points in mind, have also made improvements in the
lay and meat-producing qualities of their chickens. Considering
these facts it is an erroneous idea to think that mongrel chickens
offer any advantage over pure bred stock.
In the broader sense we may regard as pure-bred those animals that
reproduce their shape, color, habits, or other distinctive qualities
with uniformity. In order that we may get offspring like the parent
and like each other we must have animals whose ancestors for many
generations back have been of one type. The more generations of such
uniformity, the more certain it will be that the young will possess
similar quality.
One strain of chickens may be selected for uniform color of
feathers, another for a certain size and shape, another for laying
large eggs of a certain color, and yet another strain for being
producers of many eggs. Each of these strains might be well-bred in
these particular traits, but would be mongrels when the other
considerations were taken into account.
This explains to us why the family or strains is frequently more
important than the breed. In fact, the whole series of breed
classification is arbitrary. This is especially true of the American
or mixed breeds. Humorously turned fanciers at the poultry show
frequently have much sport trying to get other fanciers to tell
White or Buff Rocks from Wyandottes, when the heads are hidden. From
the dressed carcasses with feet and head removed, the finest set of
poultry judges in the world would be hopelessly lost in a collection
of Rocks, Wyandottes, Reds and Orpingtons and, I dare say, one could
run in a few Langshans and Minorcas if it were not for their black
pin feathers.
What Breed.
The writer has great admiration for breeding as an art. He would
rather be the originator of a breed of green chickens with six toes,
than to have been the author of "Afraid to Go Home in the Dark." But
I do want the novice who reads this book to be spared some of the
mental throes usually indulged in over the selection of a breed.
So-called meat breeds, that is, the big feather legged Asiatics save
on a few capon and roaster plants in New England, are really
useless. They have given size to American chickens as a class, and
in that have served a useful purpose, but standing alone they cannot
compete with lighter, quick growing breeds.
For commercial consideration there are really but two types: The egg
breeds of Mediterranean origin and the general purpose breeds or
growers, including the Rocks, Wyandottes and Rhode Island Reds. The
difference between the layers on the one hand and the growers on the
other, is quite important. Which should be used depends on the
location and plan of operations, as has already been discussed.
The choice of variety within the group is a matter of taste and
chance of sales of fancy stock. This one principle can, however, be
laid down: The more popular the breed, the more choice there will be
in selecting strains and individuals. Pea Comb Plymouth Rocks and
Duckwing Leghorns should not be considered because of their rarity.
Of the growers, their popularity and claims are close enough to make
the particular choice unimportant. For commercial consideration, the
writer would as soon invest his money in a flock of Barred Rock,
White Wyandottes or Rhode Island Reds. Among layers the S. C. White
has achieved such a lead that the majority of good laying strains
are in this breed and to choose any other would be to place a
handicap on oneself. For a description of breeds, the reader should
secure an Illustrated American Standard of Perfection, or some of
the books published by poultry fanciers and judges. To take up the
matter here would merely be using my space for imparting knowledge
which can be better secured elsewhere.
The relative popularity of breeds at the poultry shows is nicely
shown by the following list. This data was compiled by adding the
numbers of each breed exhibited at 124 different poultry shows in
the season of 1907. A detailed report of the total entries of each
breed is as follows: Plymouth Rocks, 14,514; Wyandottes, 12,320;
Leghorns, 8,740; Rhode Island Reds, 5,812; Orpingtons, 2,857;
Langshans, 2,153; Minorcas, 1,709; Cochin Bantams, 1,590; Games,
1,277; Brahmas, 1,181; Cochins, 1,010; Hamburgs, 758; Game Bantams,
637; Polish, 618; Houdans, 538; Indians, 538; Anconas, 464; Sebright
Bantams, 423; Andalusians, 117; Japanese Bantams, 115; Dorkings,
105; Brahma Bantams, 104; Buckeyes, 95; Silkies, 85; Spanish, 83;
Redcaps, 71; Sumatras, 41; Polish Bantams, 37; Sultans, 18; Malays,
12; Frizzles, 7; Le Fleche, 7; Dominiques, 5; Booted Bantams, 4;
Malay Bantams, 3; Crevecoeure, 3.
CHAPTER XIV
PRACTICAL AND SCIENTIFIC BREEDING
Science has been defined as the "know how" and art as the "do how."
The man who works by art depends upon an unconscious judgment which
is inborn or is acquired by long practice. The man who works by
science may also have this artistic taste, but he tests its dicta by
comparison with known facts and principles. The scientist not only
looks before he leaps, but measures the distance and knows exactly
where he is going to land.
Breeding has for centuries been an art, but the science of breeding
is so new as to seem a mass of contradictions to all except those
familiar with the maze of mathematics and biology by which the
barn-yard facts must find their ultimate explanation. The science of
breeding may in the future bring about that which would now seem
miraculous, but it is the ancient art of breeding that is and will
for years continue to be the means by which the poultry fancier will
achieve his results.
In a volume the chief aim of which is to place the poultry industry,
which is now conducted as an art, in the realm of technical science,
it might seem proper to devote considerable space to the subject of
breeding, That I shall not do so, is for the reason that while
theoretically I recognize the important part that breeding plays in
all animal production, for the practical proposition of producing
poultry products at the lowest possible cost, a knowledge of the
technical science of breeding is unessential and may, by diverting
the poultryman's time to unprofitable efforts, prove an actual
handicap.
For the show room breeder the new science of breeding is too
undeveloped to be of immediate service, or I had better say, the
show room requisites are too complicated for theoretical breeding to
promise results. For the commercial poultryman, I shall review what
has been accomplished and state briefly the theories upon which
contemplated work is based.
The objects striven after in poultry breeding are: 1st: To create
new varieties which shall have improved practical points or shall
attract attention as curiosities. 2d: To approach the ideals
accepted by fanciers for established breeds, and hence win in
competition. 3d: To change some particular feature or habit as, to
increase egg production or reduce the size of bantams. 4th: To
improve several points at once as, eggs and size in general purpose
fowls. This classification is really unnecessary, as the most
specialized breeding involves consideration of many points.
Breeding as an Art.
The method by which breeds and varieties of the show room specimens
have been developed is essentially as follows: The wonderfully
different varieties of fowl from every quarter of the earth are
brought together. Crossing is then resorted to, with the result that
birds of all forms and colors are produced. The breeder then selects
specimens that most nearly conform to the type or ideal in his mind.
Suppose a man wished to produce Barred Leghorns, with a fifth toe.
He would secure Barred Rocks, White Leghorns and White or Gray
Dorkings. Then he would cross in every conceivable fashion.
Perhaps he might have trouble getting the white color to disappear.
In that case Buff Leghorns which are a newer breed might be tried
and found more pliable material. By such methods the breeder would in
three or four generations of crossing get a crude type of what he
desired. Henceforth it would be a matter of patience and
selection. Five to twenty years is the time usually taken to produce
new breeds of fancy poultry that will breed true to type. In this
style of breeding the principles at stake are simple. The first is
to secure the variations wanted; second, to breed from the most
desirable of these specimens.
The same methods of selection that establish a breed are used to
maintain it, or to establish strains. In ordinary breeding there are
two other principles that are sometimes called into play. One is
prepotency, the other is inbreeding. By prepotent we mean having
unusual power to transmit characters to offspring. Suppose a breeder
has five yards headed by five cock birds. The male in yard two he
does not consider quite as fine as the bird in yard one, but in the
fall he finds the offspring of bird from two much better than the
offspring from yard one. The breeder should keep the prepotent sire
and his offspring rather than the more perfect male, who fails to
stamp his traits upon his get.
Normally a child has two parents, four grandparents, and eight
great-grandparents. Now, when cousins marry, the great-grandparents
of the offspring are reduced to six. The mating of brother and
sister cuts the grandparents to two, and the great-grandparents to
four. Mating of parent and offspring makes a parent and grandparent
identical and likewise eliminates ancestry. Inbreeding means the
reduction of the number of branches in the ancestral tree, and this
means the reduction of the number of chances to get variation, be
they good or bad.
Inbreeding simply intensifies whatever is there. It does not
necessarily destroy the vitality, but if close inbreeding is
practiced long enough, sooner or later some little existing weakness
or peculiarity would become intensified and may prove fatal to the
strain. For illustration, suppose we began inbreeding brother and
sister with a view of keeping it up indefinitely. Now, in the
original blood, a tendency for the predominance of one sex over the
other undoubtedly exists and would be intensified until there would
come a generation all of one sex, which, of course, terminates our
experiment.
Inbreeding has always been tabooed by the people generally.
Meanwhile the clever stock breeders have combined inbreeding with
selection and have won the show prizes and sold the people "new
blood" at fancy prices.
Unintelligent inbreeding as practiced on many a farm, results in run
down stock, not so much from inbreeding as from lack of selection.
Out-crossing or mixing in of new blood is better than hit-or-miss
inbreeding. Intelligent inbreeding is better still.
Scientific Theories of Breeding.
The main tenet of Darwin's theory of racial inheritance or
evolution, was that changes in animal life, wild or domestic, were
brought about by the addition of very slight, perhaps imperceptible,
variations. He argued that the giraffe with the longest neck could
browse on higher leaves in time of drought and hence left offspring
with slightly longer necks than the previous generation.
Upon this theory the ordinary breeding by selection is based. In
case of breeding for show room, the breeder's eye, or the judge's
score card, is the tape with which to measure the length of the
giraffe's neck. This principle can be applied equally well, even
better, to characteristics where accurate measurement may be used.
The last forty years of scientific progress has established firmly
the general theories of Darwin, but they have also resulted in our
questioning his idea that all great changes are due to the sum of
small variations. Many instances have been suggested in which the
theory of gradual changes could not explain the facts.
The theory of mutation, of which Hugo de Vries, of Holland, is the
chief expounder, does not antagonize Darwin, but simply gives more
weight in the process of evolution to the factor of sudden changes
commonly called sports. Let us illustrate: In the giraffe of our
former forest, one might appear whose neck was not longer because of
slightly longer vertebrae, but who possessed an extra vertebrae.
This would be a mutation. In other words, a mutation is a marked
variation that may be inherited. We now believe that polled cattle,
five-toed Dorkings, top-knotted Houdans, frizzles and black skinned
chickens arose through mutations.
Burbank's Methods--The wonderful Burbank with his thornless cactus,
his stoneless plum, and his white blackberry, is simply a searcher
after mutations. His success is not because he uses any secret
methods, but because of the size of his operations. He produces his
specimens by the millions, and in these millions looks, and often
looks in vain for the lonely sport that is to father a new race.
Burbank has, with plants, many advantages of which the animal
breeder is deprived. He can produce his specimens in greater number,
he can more easily find out the desirable character, and in many
plants he has not the uncertain element of double parentage to
contend with, while with others he is still more fortunate, as he
can produce them by seed, stimulate variation until the desired
mutation is found and can then reproduce the desired variation with
certainty by the use of cuttings. This latter is not true
inheritance with its inevitable variation, but the indefinite
prolongation of the life of one individual. In this sense there is
only one seedless orange tree in the world.
The Centgenitor System--Prof. Hays in breeding wheat at Minnesota,
first used in this country a system of breeding which is essentially
as follows: A large variety of individual seeds are selected. These
are planted separately and the amount and character of the yield
observed. The offspring of one seed is kept separate for several
generations, or until the character of the tribe is thoroughly
established. The advantage of this plan of breeding is in that the
selection is not made by comparing individuals, but by comparing the
offspring of individuals. Thus, we necessarily select the only trait
really worth while; that is prepotency or the ability to beget
desirable qualities.
The application of this centgenitor system necessitates inbreeding;
it also necessitates large operations. Of the former, breeders have
generally been afraid; of the latter they have lacked opportunity.
But the centgenitor system, combined with Burbank's principle of
large opportunity of selection, is, in the writer's belief, the
method by which the 200-egg hen will be ultimately established in
America.
Much of the recent stimulus to the study of the Science of Breeding
was occasioned by the discovery of Mendel's Law. Briefly, the law
states that when two pure traits or characters are crossed, one
dominates in the first generation of offspring--the other remaining
hidden or recessive. Of the second generation, one-half the
individuals are still mixed, bearing the dominant characteristic
externally and the other hidden; one-fourth are pure dominants and
one-fourth are pure recessives. In future generations the mixed or
hybrid individuals again give birth to mixed and pure types
apportioned as before, thus continuing until all offspring become
ultimately pure. For illustration: If rose and single comb chickens
are crossed, rose combs are dominant. The first generation will all
have rose combs. The second generation will have one-fourth single
combs that will breed true, one-fourth rose combs that will breed
rose combs only, and one-half that again will give all three types.
Mendel's Law works all right in cases where pure unit
characteristics are to be found. For the great practical problems in
inheritance, Mendel's law is utterly hopeless. The trouble is that
the chief things with which we are concerned are not unit
characteristics but are combinations of countless characteristics
which cannot be seen or known, hence cannot be picked out. Thus the
tendency to revert to pure types is foiled by the constant
recrossing of these types.
Mendel's law is a scientific curiosity like the aeroplane. It may
some day be more than a curiosity, but both have tremendous odds to
overcome before they supplant our present methods.
Prof. C.B. Davenport, of the Carnegie Institute, is working on
experimental poultry breeding in its purely scientific sense. His
conclusions have been much criticised by poultry fanciers. The truth
of the matter is that the fancier fails to appreciate the spirit of
pure science. The scientist, enthused to find his white fowl
re-occur after a generation of black ones, is wholly undisturbed by
the fact that the white ones, if exhibited, might be taken for a
Silver Spangled Hamburg.
Mendel's law as yet offers little to the fancier and less to the
commercial poultryman. Its study is all right in its place, but its
place is not on the poultry plant whose profits are to buy the baby
a new dress.
Breeding for Egg Production.
Attempts to improve the egg-producing qualities of the hen date from
the domestication of the hen, but it has only been within the last
few years that rapid progress has been possible in this work. The
inability to determine the good layers has been the difficulty.
The great majority of people make no selection of hens from which to
hatch their stock. The eggs of the whole flock are kept together and
when eggs are desired for hatching they are selected from a general
basket. It has been assumed, and is shown by trap-nest records, that
eggs thus selected in the spring of the year are from the poorer,
rather than from the better layers. This is because hens that have
not been laying during the winter will lay very heavily during the
spring season. Many breeders have attempted to pick out the good
layers by the appearance of the hens. Before the advent of the
trap-nest the "egg type" of hen was believed to be a positive
indication of a good layer. The "egg type" hen had slender neck,
small head, long, deep body of a wedge shape. Various "systems"
founded on these or other "signs" have been sold for fancy prices to
people who were easily separated from their money. Trap-nest records
show such systems to be on a par with the lunar guidance in
agricultural operations.
I might remark here that the determination of sex by the shape of
the egg or similar methods, is in a like category. Science finds no
proof of such theories.
A few methods of selecting the layers have been suggested which,
while far from absolute, are of some significance and are well worth
noting. The hen that sits upon the roost while other hens are out
foraging, is probably a drone. The excessively fat or the
excessively lean hens are not likely to be layers. It would
naturally be supposed that the active laying hen would be the last
one to go to roost at night. At the Kansas Experiment Station, the
writer made observations upon the order in which the hens went to
roost, and the above assumption was found in the majority of cases
to be correct.
A still better scheme of selecting layers is the practice of picking
out the thrifty, quickly maturing pullets when they first begin to
lay in the fall season. At the Maine Experiment Station, such a
selection gave a flock of layers which averaged about one hundred
and eighty eggs, when the remainder of the flock yielded only one
hundred and forty.
Trap-nests devised to catch the hen that lays the egg are numerous
in the market. A trap-nest to be successful, must not only catch the
hen that lays, but must prevent the entrance of the other hens.
The more trap-nests that are provided, the less often they will
require attention, but the more often the nests are attended the
better for the comfort of the hens.
The use of trap-nests is expensive and cannot be recommended for the
poultryman who must make every hour of time put on his chickens
yield him an immediate income. Fanciers and Experiment Stations can
well afford to use trap-nests and must, indeed, use them both for
breeding for egg production, and also for determining the hen that
laid the egg when full pedigrees are desired in other breeding work.
A scheme that has sometimes been used in the place of trap-nests, is
a system of small compartments, in each of which one hen is kept.
Such a scheme does not seem feasible on a large scale, but for
breeders wishing to keep the records of a small number of hens, it
is all right. Because of its cost, this system is wholly out of the
question, except for a man following breeding as a hobby and who
cannot devote himself during the day to the care of trap-nests.
Having determined the best layers, it remains to breed from these
and from their descendants. The tests of pullets hatched from hens
are better signs of the hen's value as a breeder than is her own
record. It has been surmised that a hen which lays heavily will not
lay eggs containing vigorous germs. So far as the writer's
experience has gone, the laying of infertile eggs is a family or
individual trait not particularly related to the number of eggs
laid.
When we have bred from the best layers and have raised our average
egg yielder to a higher level, the question arises as to whether the
strain will permanently maintain the high yield or drop back to the
former rate of production. Theory says that it will not drop back.
As a matter of fact it will not do so, for the heavier production
will be more trying on the hen's constitution, and naturally
selection will gradually cause the egg record to dwindle. Hence the
necessity of continued selection or the infusion of new blood from
other selected strains.
Whatever may be the change desired in a strain of chickens,
specimens showing the trait to be selected should be used as
breeders. Those characteristics readily visible to the eye have long
been the subjects of the breeder's efforts. But traits not directly
visible can likewise be changed by breeding. The number of eggs,
size and color of eggs, rapid growth, ready fattening powers,
quality of meat and general characteristics, are all matters of
inheritance, and if proper means are taken to select the desirable
individuals all such characteristics can be changed at the will of
the breeder.
It is a fact, however, often overlooked, that the more traits for
which one selects, the slower will be progress. For illustration: If
in breeding for egg production, one-half the good layers are
discarded for lack of fancy points, the progress will be just half
as rapid.
A discussion of the work in breeding for egg production at the Maine
Experiment Station is taken up in the next chapter.
CHAPTER XV
EXPERIMENT STATION WORK
Our entire scheme of agricultural education and experimentation is
new. The poultry work at experiment stations is very new. Ten years
will about cover everything worthy of a permanent record in the
poultry experiment station files.
Stations Leading in Poultry Work.
Among the earliest stations to begin poultry work in this country
were Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Maine. Rhode
Island conducted the first school of poultry culture. The two
stations of New York State were also early in the work, and Cornell
now has the leading school of poultry culture in this country.
West Virginia has always maintained a considerable poultry plant.
Outside of the states east of the Appalachians, the first poultry
work to be heard of was that of Prof. Dryden at the Experiment
Station of Utah. Prof. Dryden's work was of a demonstrative nature.
His early bulletins were forceful and well illustrated, and did much
to call attention to poultry work.
In all this early work the great Mississippi Valley, where
four-fifths of the nation's poultry is produced, entirely ignored
the hen. The writer began his work with poultry at the Kansas
Station in 1902, but his chickens were housed in a discarded hog
house, and no funds being available, little was accomplished. In the
last three or four years these experiment stations are rapidly
falling into line and a number of poultry bulletins have recently
been issued from these younger schools.
A few of the early landmarks in experiment station work was as
follows:
The Utah Station clearly found that hens laid about 65 per cent. as
many eggs in the second as in the first year, and that to keep hens
for egg production beyond the second year, was unprofitable.
Massachusetts proved that corn was a better food for layers than
wheat, and that the prejudice against it was founded on a misapplied
theory.
The New York Station at Geneva demonstrated that poultry generally,
and ducks in particular, are not vegetarians, and must have meat to
thrive and that vegetable protein will not make good the deficiency.
The Maine Station was chiefly instrumental in introducing
trap-nests, curtain front houses and dry feeding. The breeding work
at Maine will be discussed at length in the last section of this
chapter.
The United States Department of Agriculture did not take up poultry
work until 1906. The publications issued by the department before
that time were written by outsiders and printed by the Government.
The following is the list of the addresses of the experiment
stations who have taken a leading interest in poultry work. It is
not worth while giving a list of poultry bulletins, as many of them
are out of print and can only be consulted in a library.
Maine--Orono.
Mass.--Amherst.
Conn.--Storrs.
Rhode Is.--Kingston.
New York--Ithaca.
New York--Geneva.
Maryland--College Park.
West. Va.--Morgantown.
Iowa--Ames.
Kansas--Manhattan.
Utah--Logan.
Calif.--Berkeley.
Oregon--Corvalis.
U.S. Gov.--Washington, D.C.
Ontario--Guelph (Canada).
Many foreign governments have us out-distanced in the encouragement
of the poultry industry. Our Canadian neighbors have done much more
practical work in getting out among the farmers and improving the
stock and methods along commercial lines. As a result the Canadians
have built up a nice British trade with which we have thus far not
been able to compete. The work by the Ontario Station on the subject
of incubation is discussed in the Chapter on Incubation.
Australia, like Canada, has given much practical assistance in
marketing the poultry products, the government maintaining packing
stations, where the poultry is packed for export. The Australian
laying contests are quoted in the present volume. They outclass
anything else in the world along that line.
In England, Ireland and especially in Denmark, the government, or
societies encouraged by the Government, have done a great deal to
develop the poultry industry. Depots for marketing and grading are
maintained and the stock of the farmers is improved by fowls from
the government breeding farms.
The Story of the "Big Coon."
With apologies to Joel Chandler Harris, I will tell a little story.
Uncle Remus was telling the little boy about the "big coon." It
seems that the "big coon" had been seen on numerous occasions, but
all efforts at his capture had failed. One night they saw the "big
coon" up in the 'simmon tree, in the middle of the ten-acre lot. All
hands and the dogs were summoned. To be sure of bagging the game,
the tree was cut down. The dogs rushed in but there was no coon.
"But, Uncle Remus," said the little boy, "I thought you said you saw
the big coon in the tree."
"Laws, chile," replied Uncle Remus, "doesn't youse know dat it am
mighty easy for folks to see something dat ain't dar, when dey are
lookin' fer it?"
When scientific experimenters entered the poultry field about
fifteen years ago, they found it swarming with old ladies' notions.
For everything a reason was given, but these reasons were derived
from the kind of dreams where that which pleases the human mind is
seized upon and search is made to find ideas to back it, not because
it is true, but because it "listens good" to the dreamer. The first
duty of the scientist was to banish these will-o'-the-wisp ideas
that lead to no practical results.
For illustration Round eggs were supposed to hatch pullets and long
ones cockerels. Eggs will not hatch if it thunders. Shipped eggs
must be allowed to rest before hatching, the drug store was the
universal source of relief when the chickens became sick, and red
pepper and patent foods were the egg foods par excellence. These
things, thanks to the scientist, are no longer believed or regarded
by well read poultrymen, and instead his attention has been turned
to matters having a more happy relation to his bank account.
In clearing away the useless popular notions, the scientists
themselves have not been free from their influence, especially when
they seemed to agree with accepted scientific theory. Many, indeed,
are the 'coons in poultry science that have been seen because they
were being looked for.
As a partial explanation it should be said that men available for
scientific poultry work are very scarce. Poultry keepers schooled in
the University of the Poultry Yard have no conception of scientific
methods, and would explain experimental results by a theory that
would fail to fit elsewhere. The available scientists on the other
hand are seldom poultrymen.
Among the first men to take up animal husbandry work of all kinds,
were the veterinarians. For years the only poultry publications put
out by the U.S. Government were by veterinarians. These dust covered
volumes with their five color plates of the fifty-seven varieties of
tapeworms, still rest on the shelves of public libraries, a monument
to the time when the practical poultryman knew only things that
weren't so, and the scientific poultryman knew only things that were
useless.
The first general law that all experimenters should know and the
ignorance of which has caused and still causes the waste of the
major portion of experimental brains and money, we will call the
"Law of Chance." Let the reader who is not familiar with such things
take two pennies and toss them upon the table. They are both heads
up. He tosses them again, one comes heads, the other tails. The
third time repeats the second. The fourth both come tails. The law
of chance says this is correct. Heads should appear 25 per cent.,
tails 25 per cent., and mixed 50 per cent. of the time. Now let the
reader try this in a lot of twelve tosses. Does it prove the law?
Try it again. Are all lots alike? Now pitch a hundred times, then
pitch pennies all day. By night the law will be so near proven that
the experimenter will be willing to concede its validity.
Now suppose the lots of twelve tosses, each were lots of twelve
hens, one Plymouth Rocks, the other Wyandottes, or one fed corn and
the other wheat. The law of chance clearly proves that the larger
number of unites, the nearer the theoretical truths will be the
experimental results. Note, however, that small lots may by chance
be as near the truth as large lots.
In practice two grave errors are made: First, conclusions are drawn
from small lots compared with each other; second, conclusions are
drawn from large lots compared with small lots. In the first case
both may be off; in the latter case the small one may be off.
Examples of the first error are to be found in the scores of
contradicting breed and feed tests, that were published in the early
days of poultry research. The second error is exemplified in the
Ontario experiments in incubation, to which reference has already
been made.
Here is a further example of this error. From the fifth egg laying
competition at the Hawkesbury Agricultural College in Australia, I
copy the following:
No. of Hens. Variety. Ave. Egg Yield.
6 Cuckoo Leghorn 190.16
30 S.C. Brown Leghorn 177.00
138 S.C. White Leghorn 174.93
12 R.C. Brown Leghorn 173.50
12 R.C. White Leghorn 172.66
18 Buff Leghorn 160.55
6 Black Leghorn 138.33
The ranking of Cuckoo Leghorns as first is a chance happening due to
the small number; likewise the Black Leghorns had a streak of bad
luck and received lowest place. To one not familiar with such work,
the real significance of the table is that the S.C.W. Leghorns did
the best work. A totaling of all other varieties gives 84 fowls with
an average egg production of 170.5, which bears out the conclusion.
As these birds were all kept in pens of six, we would expect to find
the highest single pen to be White Leghorns, because, when compared
with all other Leghorns, they have both the highest average and the
greatest number. This accords with the fact that as the highest
single pen is found to be White Leghorns with an egg yield of 239
eggs.
The above illustrates another important phase of the laws of chance,
which says that not only is the average likely to be nearer the
theoretical average sought when the number is increased, but that
the individual extremes will be more removed.
Important Experimental Results at the Illinois Station.
From an Illinois Experiment Station report, the following is quoted:
"The stock used was Barred Plymouth Rock pullets. These pullets were
a very uniform Barred Rock stock that had been bred as an individual
strain for many years. They were practically the same age, and
except for the factors mentioned were treated as uniformly as
possible.
First Year's Results.
No. Hens. Diet. Ave. Egg Yield.
10 Nitrogenous Diet 132.9
10 Carbonaceous Diet 128.4
10 Wet Wash 155.8
10 Dry Wash 111.4
"The results of the first test are somewhat surprising for it is
generally believed that the nitrogenous diet is best for laying
hens. The difference indicated in the first year's results was so
light that it was decided to repeat the experiment the second year.
"As the wet wash is clearly proven to be superior, these hens were
used the second year to compare meat meal with fresh cut bone.
Second Year's Result.
No. Hens. Diet. Ave. Egg Yield.
10 Nitrogenous 142.2
10 Carbonaceous 134.5
10 Meat Meal 102.2
10 Green Cut Bone 128.9
"The results of the second year clearly indicate the great
superiority of green cut bone as compared with the dry unpalatable
meat meal. The comparison of a highly nitrogenous ration with that
of a ration consisting largely of corn, while showing the advantages
of the nitrogenous rations, does not show the contrast expected.
"Some visiting poultrymen expressed the opinion that corn is a
better poultry food than commonly supposed. Considering this fact
and the great fundamental importance of the question at issue, it
was decided to repeat the experiment a third year, and feed a large
number of birds on each ration.
No. Hens. Diet. Ave. Egg Yield.
100 Nitrogenous 126.9
100 Carbonaceous 127.2"
I will leave the last without comment, for the whole thing is a
hoax. The Illinois Experiment Station has never owned a chicken.
These "Illinois" experiments were planned and executed in a few
minutes of the writer's spare time. The basis of the experiments was
a pack of cards containing the individual records of the Maine
Experiment Station hens, shuffling the cards and averaging the
desired number of records as they come in the pack, made the
distinction between the various diets.
Experimental Bias.
Pet ideas consciously or unconsciously mold practice. A bias toward
an idea may show itself in the planning and conducting of an
experiment, or it may come out in the later interpretation.
An illustration of the first kind is found in the early work of the
West Virginia Station (Bulletin 60). With the preconceived notion
that hens should have a nitrogenous diet an experiment was planned
and conducted as follows:
One lot of hens was fed corn, potatoes, oats and corn meal. A
contrasted lot reveled in corn, potatoes, hominy feed, oat meal,
corn meal and fresh cut bone. The results were in favor of the
latter ration by a doubled egg yield.
To any experienced poultryman the reason is evident. The variety of
the diet and the meat food are what made the showing.
About the same time the Massachusetts Station planned a similar
experiment. The bias was the same, but it took a fairer form. The
hens were both given a decent variety of food and some form of meat.
The bulk of the grain was corn in the carbonaceous, and wheat in the
nitrogenous ration. The results were in favor of the corn. This
astonished the experimenter. He tried it again and again tests came
out in favor of corn. At last the old theory was revoked, and the
fallacy of wheat being essential to egg production was exploded. If
by an irony of fate in the shuffling of the hens, the wheat pen had
the first time showed an advantage, the experimenter might have been
satisfied and the waste of feeding high priced feed when a better
and a cheaper is at hand, might have gone on indefinitely.
Of bias in the interpretation of results all publications are more
or less saturated. A reading of the Chapter on Incubation will
illustrate this. A common error of this kind is the omission of
facts necessary to fully explain results. Items of costs are
invariably omitted or minimized. Food cost alone is usually
mentioned in figuring experimenting station poultry profits, which
statement will undoubtedly cause a sad smile to creep over the face
of many a "has-been" poultryman.
The writer remembers an incident from his college days which
illustrates the point in hand. Let it first be remarked that this
was on the new lands of the trans-Missouri Country, where manure had
no more commercial value than soil, and is freely given to those
who will haul it away.
The professor at the blackboard had been figuring up handsome
profits on a type of dairying towards which he wits very partial.
The figures showed a goodly profit, but the biggest expense
item--that of labor--was omitted. One of the students held up his
hand and inquired after the labor bill.
"Oh," said the smiling professor, "The manure will pay for the
labor."
When the class adjourned, the student remarked: "They say figures
won't lie, but a liar will figure."
The third way in which experiments are made worthless is by the
introduction of factors other than the one being tested. This may be
done by chance, and the conductor not realize the presence of the
other factor, or the varying factors may be introduced intentionally
under the belief that they are negligible. Of the first case an
instance may be cited of the placing of two flocks in a house, one
end of which is damper than the other, the accidental introduction
into one flock of a contagious disease, or one flock being thrown
off feed by an excessive feed of greens, etc., etc. These factors
that influence pens of birds greatly add to the error of the law of
chance. In fact it amounts to the same thing on a larger scale. For
this reason not only are many individuals, but many flocks, many
locations, and many years needed to prove the superiority of the
contrasted methods.
The criticisms in the following section will amply illustrate the
case of foreign factors being unwisely introduced into an
experiment.
The Egg Breeding Work at the Maine Station.
As is well known the Maine Station was for years considered by all
poultrymen to be doing a great and beneficial work in breeding for
increased egg production. Up until the fall of 1907, the poultrymen
of the country were of the opinion that this work was in every way
successful, and a large number of private breeders had taken up the
use of trap-nests in an effort to build up the egg production of
their fowls.
When early in 1908 Bulletin 157 of the Maine Experiment Station was
published, it showed by averages as given in the table on page 202
that the egg yield at the station was for the entire period on the
decline. In Bulletin 157, the statement was made that "arithmetical
mistakes" and "faulty statistical methods" accounted for the
discrepancies between the former publications and the criticised
data. The further explanation that "the experiment was a success as
an experiment," etc., only appeared to the public mind as a graceful
way of explaining what was, to the practical man, an utter failure
of the entire work.
The unfortunate death of Professor Gowell, together with the fact
that he had equipped a private poultry farm with station stock,
added to the confusion, and the result of the bulletin was the
precipitation of a general "pow-wow" in which the poultry editors
were about equally divided between those who were casting
insinuations upon the personnel of the station, and those who
decried the whole effort toward improving the egg yield.
After going over the publications of Professor Gowell, visiting the
station and meeting the present force, I came to the following
conclusions regarding the matter:
Professor Gowell's work is open to severe criticism. Errors have
been made in conducting the work at Maine which have made it
possible for a mathematical biologist to take the data and seemingly
prove that selection, as practiced by Professor Gowell, actually
resulted in lowering inherent egg capacity of the strain of Plymouth
Rock hens under experimentation. Had Professor Gowell's successor
been a practical poultryman, it is my candid opinion that the public
would have been given a radically different explanation of the
results.
Professor Gowell is the author of the following statement: "The
small chicken grower is earnestly urged to use an incubator for
hatching." This opinion is not in accord with that of the majority
of breeders and the more progressive experiment station workers. The
opinion has been expressed by Professor Graham and others, that the
particular results at the Maine Station may have been due to the
decrease of vitality caused by continued artificial hatching. This
view may be wholly without foundation. Nevertheless, as the common
type of incubator is under heavy criticism, and it is pretty well
proven that chicks so hatched have not the vitality of naturally
hatched chicks, surely a series of breeding experiments would carry
more weight if the replenishing of the flock had been accomplished
by natural means.
For the first few years of the breeding work the house used was the
old-fashioned double walled and warmed pattern. The last few years
of this work were conducted in curtain front houses. That the cool
house is an improvement over the warm house is generally conceded,
but there are many poultrymen who are still of the opinion that the
warm house will give a larger egg yield, though at a greater expense
and less profit.
In the early years of the work the method of feeding was also a
time-honored one, and included a warm mash. About the middle of the
experimental period Professor Gowell brought out the system of
feeding dry mash from hoppers. This custom became a great fad and
Professor Gowell and Director Woods have preached it far and wide.
Perhaps it is an improvement, but it is to-day much more popular
with novices than with established egg farms. Many old line
poultrymen have tried dry mash only to go back to wet mash, by which
method the hens can be induced to eat more which is conducive to
high egg yields. Whether these changes in housing and feeding have
been improvements as claimed by those who introduced them, or
whether their popularity may be explained in part at least by the
psychology of fads, is a point in question, but certainly the
marring of a breeding experiment by introducing radical changes in
the factors of production is at best unfortunate.
A much more serious criticism than any of the foregoing is to be
found in a change of the size of flocks and amount of floor space
per fowl. I have gone over carefully the published records of
Professor Gowell, and the review of Dr. Pearl, and the following
table represents, as near as I can determine, these factors for the
series of years. In the year 1903 I find no clear statement as to
the manner in which the birds were housed, and I may be in error in
this case. Otherwise the table gives the facts.
Year Hens in Flock Per Hen Egg Yield
1900 20 8. sq. ft. 136.36
1901 20 8. sq. ft. 143.44
1902 20 8. sq. ft. 155.58
1903 20 8. sq. ft. 135.42
1904 50 4.4 sq. ft. 117.90
1905 50 4.4 sq. ft. 134.07
1906 50 4.4 sq. ft. 140.14
1907 50 4.4 sq. ft. 113.24
Certainly this oversight is a serious one, and one especially
remarkable considering the fact that the comparison of different
size flocks formed a prominent part of the Maine Station work during
the last three years of the breeding test. The results of the work
at the Maine Station on testing flock size, conducted without
relation to the breeding work, gave the following results:
No. of Hens Sq. ft. per Hen Egg Yield
150 3.2 111.68
100 4.8 123.21
50 4.8 129.69
No comparisons of 50 and 20 bird flocks in the same year are
available, but by extending the comparisons of the 50, 100 and 150
flocks into the 20 flock size, we can get some idea of the error
that has been here introduced. The result of the Australian egg
laying contest in which the flocks were composed of six hens, shows
a yield of about one and one-half times as heavy as the Maine
records, which certainly seems to substantiate the ideas here
brought out.
It is a well established fact in poultry circles that many men who
succeed with a few hundred hens, fail when the number is increased
to as many thousands. When the breeding experiments under discussion
were started, Professor Gowell had under his supervision about three
hundred hens. When the work was closed the experiment station plant
had been increased to four or five times its capacity, and Professor
Gowell had a large private poultry plant of his own in addition.
It is interesting to note in this connection that the last four
years of the records are explained by Professor Gowell as being low,
due to various "accidents" (?) It is unreasonable to suppose the
true explanation of these "accidents" would be found in connection
with the increased responsibility and size of the plant.
The breeding stock sent out by Professor Gowell has given general
satisfaction, and was found by Professor Graham of the Ontario
Station, as well as by a number of private individuals, to be of
superior laying quality to that of the average Barred Rock.
Clearly there is only one way to prove whether Professor Gowell's
work has been a wasted effort, and that is for flocks of his strain
to be tested at other experiment stations against birds of
miscellaneous origin.
That much has been lost to the poultrymen of the country by the
recent upheaval at the Maine Station, I believe to be the case, but
that does not mean that the men now in charge will not in the future
be of great value to the poultry interests. They are, however, in
the class of pure scientists rather than applied scientists, but if
let alone they will dig out something sooner or later which they or
others can apply to the benefit of the industry.
Upon the whole, I think that the present case of the trap-nest
method of increasing egg production stands very much as it is has
always stood, being a commendable thing for small breeders who could
afford the time, but not practical in a large way, except at
experiment stations. On a large commercial scale the system of
selecting sires by the collective work of his first year's offspring
would probably get the quickest results.
The best use of the funds of the people in the promotion of
agricultural industries is in the permanent endorsement on the one
hand of a few high grade research stations where the deeper theories
may be worked out, and on the other the teaching of such good
principles and practices as are already known.
The greatest opportunity for Government effort lies in the
development demonstration farm work in poultry Just as it is doing
with the corn and cotton in the South.
CHAPTER XVI
POULTRY ON THE GENERAL FARM
This chapter will be devoted to specific directions for the
profitable keeping of chickens on the typical American farm. By
typical American farm I mean the farm west of Ohio, north of
Tennessee and east of Colorado. Farms outside this section present
different problems. In the region mentioned about three-quarters of
the American poultry and egg crop is produced, and in this section
poultry keeping is more profitable when conducted as a part of
general farm operations than as an exclusive business.
There is no reason why a farmer should not be a poultry fancier if
he desires, but in that case his special interest in his chickens
would throw him out of the class we are at present considering.
Likewise, I do not doubt that in many instances where the farmer or
members of his family took special interest in poultry work, it
would be profitable to increase the size of operations beyond those
herein advised, using incubators and keeping Leghorns. Of these
exceptions the farmer himself must judge. The rules I lay down are
for those farmers who wish to keep chickens for profit, but do not
care to devote any larger share of their time and study to them than
they do to the cows, hogs, orchard or garden.
The advice herein given in this chapter will differ from much of the
advice given to farmers by poultry writers. The average poultry
editor is afraid to give specific advice concerning breeds,
incubators, etc., because he fears to offend his advertisers. The
reader, left to judge for himself, is liable to pick out some fancy
impractical variety or method.
Best Breeds for the Farm.
Keep only one variety of chickens. Do not bother with other
varieties of poultry unless it is turkeys. Whether it will pay to
raise turkeys will depend upon your success with the little turks,
and on the freedom of the community from the disease called
Black-head.
The kind of chicken you should keep should be picked from the three
following breeds: Barred Plymouth Rock, White Wyandotte, Rhode
Island Reds. If you go outside of these three breeds be sure you
have a very good reason for doing so.
Then get a start with a new breed, buy at least four sittings of
eggs in a single season, paying not over $2.00 per sitting. Keep all
the pullets and a half dozen of the best cockerels. The next spring
pen these pullets up with the best cockerels, and use none but eggs
from this pen for hatching. That fall sell all of the young
cockerels and all the old scrub hens. The second spring the two old
roosters from the original purchased eggs are used with the general
flock. From this time on the entire flock is pure bred and should
remain so.
Each year when the chicks are about six or eight weeks old pick out
the largest, most vigorous male chick from each brood. Mark these by
clipping the web of the foot or putting on leg bands. From those so
marked the breeding cockerels for the next season are later
selected. When you pick the good cockerels pick out all runty
looking pullets and cut off the last joint of the hind toe. These
runts are later to be eaten or sold. The more surplus chicks raised,
the more strictly can the selection be made.
This system of picking the best cockerel from each brood and
discarding the poorest pullets is the most practical method known of
building up a vigorous, quick growing and early laying strain.
When we allow the entire flock of many different ages to grow up
before the selection is made it is impossible to select
intelligently.
Every third or fourth year an extra cock bird may be purchased
provided you are sure you are getting a specimen from a better flock
than your own. Swapping roosters or eggs every year is poor policy.
If your neighbor has better stock than you, get his blood pure and
sell off your own, but do not keep a barnyard full of scrubs who can
trace their ancestry to every flock in the neighborhood.
Keep Only Workers.
On many farms few eggs are gathered from October to January. This is
a season when eggs bring the best prices. To secure eggs at this
season, the first requisite is that the pullets be hatched between
the first of March and the middle of May, or, in the case of
Leghorns, between the first of April and the first of June. Pullets
hatched later than these dates are a source of expense during the
fall and early winter. On the other hand, it is an unnecessary waste
of effort to hatch pullets before the dates mentioned, because, if
hatched too early, they will molt in the fall and stop laying the
same as old hens.
Pullets must be well fed and cared for if expected to develop in the
time allowed. As they begin to show signs of maturity they should be
gotten into permanent quarters. If allowed to begin laying while
roosting in coops or in trees they will be liable to quit when
changed to new quarters. If possible the coops should be gradually
moved toward the hen-house and the pullets gotten into quarters
without excitement or confinement. The poultry-house should have an
ample circulation of fresh air. Young stock that have been roosting
in open coops are liable to catch cold if confined in tight houses.
A common mistake is to allow a large troop of young roosters to
overrun the premises in the early fall. Not only is money lost in
the decrease in price that can be obtained for these cockerels, but
the pullets are greatly annoyed, to the detriment of the egg yield.
Any chicken that is not paying for its food in growth or in egg
production is a source of loss. As soon as the hatching season is
over old roosters should be sent to market. Through June and August
egg production is not very profitable, and a thorough culling of the
hens should be made. Market all hens two years or more of age. Send
with these all the yearling hens that appear fat and lazy. By the
time the young pullets are ready to be moved into quarters--the
latter part of August--these hens should be reduced to about
one-half the original number. Some time during September a final
culling of the old stock should be made. Those that have not yet
begun to molt should be sold, as they will not be laying again
before the warm days of the following February. This system of
culling will leave the best portion of the yearling hens, which,
together with the early-hatched pullets, will make a profitable
flock of layers.
Hatching Chicks With Hens.
The eggs for hatching should be stored in a cool, dry location at a
temperature between forty and seventy degrees Fahrenheit. A good
rule is not to set eggs over two weeks old.
The two chief losses with sitting-hens are due to lice and
interference of other hens. The practice of setting hens in the
chicken-house makes both these difficulties more troublesome. Almost
all farms will have some outbuilding situated apart from the regular
chicken-house that can be used for sitting-hens. The most convenient
arrangement will be to use boxes, and have these open at the top.
They may be placed in rows and a plank somewhat narrower than the
boxes used as a cover. The nests should be made by throwing a shovel
of earth into the box and then shaping a nest of clean straw. Make
the nest roomy enough so that as the hen steps into the nest the
eggs will spread apart readily and not be broken. When a hen shows
signs of broodiness remove her to the sitting-room. This should be
done in the evening, so that the hen becomes accustomed to her
position by daylight. Place the hen upon the nest-eggs and confine
her to the nest. If all is well the next evening give her a full
setting of eggs.
A practical method to arrange for sitting-hens is to build the nests
out of doors, allowing each hen a little yard, so that she may have
liberty to leave her nest as she chooses. These nests may be built
by using twelve-inch boards set on edge, so as to form a series of
small runways about one by six feet. In one end are built the nests,
which are covered by a broad board, while the remainder of the
arrangement is covered with lath or netting. The food, grit and
water should be placed at the opposite end of the runway. Care
should be taken to locate these nests on well-drained ground.
Arrangements should be made to close the front of the nest during
hatching so that the chicks will not drop out. A contrivance of this
kind furnishes a very convenient method of handling sitting-hens,
and if no separate building is available would be the best method to
use.
Incubators on the Farm.
My candid advice to the farmer who is in doubt as whether to buy
an incubator or not, is to let it alone. If the farmer reads the
chapter on artificial incubation, he will see that he is dealing
with a very complex problem, and one in which his chances of success
are not very great.
In order to learn the facts concerning incubators on the farms the
writer made a special investigation on the subject while poultryman
at the Kansas Experiment Station. Replies received from 111 Kansas
farmers, report 21 as having tried incubators. Of these, 6 reported
the incubators as being an improvement over hatching with hens; 10
reported the incubator as being successful, but not better than
hens, while the remaining 5 declared the incubator to be a failure.
The results of this inquiry, and of personal visits to farms, led
the writer to believe that about one-tenth of the farmers of Kansas
had tried incubators, and that about as many failed as succeeded
with artificial hatching.
The argument for the incubator on the farm is certainly not one of
better hatching, but there is an argument, and a good one for the
farm incubator. The argument is this: Hens will not set early enough
and in sufficient quantities to get out as large a number of chicks
as the farmer may desire. Now, each hen will not hatch over 10
chicks, but is capable of caring for at least 30. Here the incubator
comes into good use, for the farmer can set a half dozen hens along
with the incubator, and give all the chicks to the hens. This is the
method I recommend where an incubator is to be used. The development
of the public hatchery would supply these other 20 chicks more
economically and more certainly than the farm incubator, but until
that institution becomes established the more ambitious farm poultry
raisers are justified in trying an incubator.
The best known incubators in the market are the Cyphers, the Model
and the Prairie State. Cheaper machines are liable to do poor work.
The following points may help the farmer in deciding whether or not
to buy an incubator and in picking out a good machine.
The person to run the incubator is the first condition of its
success. A good incubator requires attention twice a day. One person
should give this attention, and must give it regularly and
carefully. The farmer's wife or some younger member of the family
can often give more time and interest to this work than can the
farmer. The likelihood of a person's success with artificial
hatchers can best be determined by himself.
The best location for an incubator is a moderately damp cellar. The
next choice would be a room in the house away from the fire or from
windows. Drafts of air blowing on the machine are especially to be
avoided. Not only do they affect the temperature directly, but cause
the lamp to burn irregularly, and this may result in fire.
The objects in view in building an incubator are: (1) To keep the
eggs at a proper temperature (103 degrees on a level with the top of
the eggs). (2) To cause the evaporation of moisture from the eggs at
a normal rate. (3) To prevent the eggs from resting too long in one
position.
The case of the incubator should be built double, or triple-walled,
to withstand variation in the outside temperature. The doors should
fit neatly and be made of double glass. The lamp should be made of
the best material, and the wick of sufficient width that the
temperature may be maintained with a low blaze. The most
satisfactory place for the lamp is at the end of the machine,
outside the case.
Regulators composed of two metals, such as aluminum and steel, are
best. Wafers filled with ether or similar liquid are more sensitive
but weaker in action. Hard-rubber bars are frequently used.
The most practical system of controlling evaporation is a system of
forced ventilation, in which the air is heated around the lamp-flue
and passes through the egg-chamber at a rate determined by
ventilators in the bottom of the machine. With the outside air cold
and dry only slight current is required, but as the outer air
becomes warmer or damper more circulation is needed.
Turning the egg is not the work that many imagine it to be. It is
not necessary that the egg be turned with absolute precision and
regularity. An elaborate device for this work is useless. The trays
will need frequently to be removed and turned around or shifted, and
the eggs can be turned at this time by lifting out a few on one side
of the tray and rolling the others over.
Two other points to be considered in the incubator are: A suitable
nursery or place for the newly hatched chick, and a good
thermometer.
Rearing Chicks.
If it is very early in the spring, and the ground is damp, it is
best to put the hen and her brood in some building. During the most
of the season the best thing is an outdoor coop. The first
consideration in making a chicken-coop is to see that it is
rain-proof and rat-tight. The next thing to look for is that the
coop is not air-tight. Let the front be of rat-tight netting or
heavy screen. The same general plan may be used for small coops for
hens, or for larger coops to be used as colony-houses for growing
chickens. The essentials are: A movable floor raided on cleats, a
sliding front covered with rat-tight netting, and a hood over the
front to keep the rain from beating in. If used late in the fall or
early in the spring a piece of cloth should be tacked on the sliding
front.
The chicken-coops should not be bunched up, but scattered out over
as much ground as is convenient. Neither should they remain long in
one spot, but should be shifted a few feet each day. At first water
should be provided at each coop, but as the chickens grow older they
may be required to come to a few central water pans.
As before suggested, rearing chicks with hens is the only suitable
method for general farm practice. The brooder on the farm is an
expensive nuisance.
For brooder raised chicks it is necessary to provide means for the
little chick to exercise. But in the season when the great majority
of farm chicks are raised they may be placed out of doors from the
start and the trouble will now be to keep them from getting too much
exercise, i.e.: to keep the hens from chasing around with them
especially in the wet grass. This is properly prevented by keeping
the brood coops in plowed ground, and keeping the hens confined by a
slatted door, until the chicks are strong enough to follow her
readily.
The chick should not be fed until 48 to 72 hours old. It may then be
started on the same kind of food as is to form its diet in after
life. The hard boiled egg and bread and milk diets are wholly
unnecessary and are only a waste of time.
I recommend the same system of chick feeding for the general farm as
is used on commercial plants, and I especially insist that it will
pay the farmer to provide meat food of some sort for his growing
chicks. The amount eaten will not be large, nor need the farmer fear
that supplying the chicks with meat food will prevent their
consuming all the bugs and worms that come their way.
Besides comfortable quarters, the chick to thrive, must have:
Exercise, water, grit, a variety of grain food, green or succulent
food, and meat food.
Water should be provided in shallow dishes. This can best be
arranged by having a dish with an inverted can or bottle which
allows only a little water to stand in the drinking basin.
Chicks running at large on gravelly ground need no provision for
grit. Chicks on board floors or clay soils must be provided with
either coarse sand or chick grit, such as is sold for the purpose.
Grain is the principal, and, too often, the only food of the chick.
The common farm way of feeding grain to young chickens is to mix
corn-meal and water and feed in a trough or on the ground. There is
no particular advantage in this way of feeding, and there are
several disadvantages. The feed is all in a bunch, and the weaker
chicks are crowded out, while if wet feed is thrown on the ground or
in a dirty trough the chicks must swallow the adhering filth, and if
any food is left over it quickly sours and becomes a menace to
health. Some people mix dough with sour milk and soda and bake this
into a bread. The better way is to feed all of the grain in a
natural dry condition.
There are foods in the market known as chick foods. The commercial
foods contain various grains and seeds, together with meat and grit.
Their use renders chick feeding quite a simple matter, it being
necessary to supply in addition only water and green foods. For
those who wish to prepare their own chick foods the following
suggestions are given:
Oatmeal is probably the best grain food for chicks. Oats cannot be
suitably prepared, however, in a common feed-mill. The hulled oats
are what is wanted. They can be purchased as the common rolled oats,
or sometimes as cut or pin-head oatmeal. The latter form would be
preferred, but either of these is an excellent chick feed. Oats in
these forms are expensive and should be purchased in bulk, not in
packages. If too expensive, oats should be used only for a few days,
when they may be replaced by cheaper grains. Cracked corn is the
best and cheapest chick food. Flaxseed could be used in small
quantities. Kaffir-corn, wheat, cow-peas--in fact any wholesome
grain--may be used, the more variety the better. Farmers possessing
feed-mills have no excuse for feeding chicks exclusively on one kind
of grain. If there is no way of grinding corn on the farm, oatmeal,
millet seed and corn chop can be purchased. At about one week of age
whole Kaffir-corn, and, a little later whole wheat, can be used to
replace the more expensive feeds.
Green or bulky food of some kind is necessary to the healthy growth
of young chickens. Chickens fed in litter from clover or alfalfa
will pick up many bits of leaves. This answers the purpose fairly
well, but it is advisable to feed some leafy vegetable, as kale or
lettuce. The chicks should be gotten on some growing green crop as
soon as possible.
Chickens are not by nature vegetarians. They require some meat to
thrive. It has been proven in several experiments that young
chickens with an allowance of meat foods make much better growth
than chickens with a vegetable diet, even when the chemical
constituents and the variety of the two rations are practically the
same.
Very few farmers feed any meat whatever. They rely on insects to
supply the deficiency. This would be all right if the insects were
plentiful and lasted throughout the year, but as conditions are it
will pay the farmer to supplement this source of food with the
commercial meat foods.
Fresh bone, cut by bone-cutters, is an excellent source of the meat
and mineral matter needed by growing chicks. If one is handy to a
butcher shop that will agree to furnish fresh bones at little or no
cost, it will pay to get a bone-mill, but the cost of the mill and
labor of grinding are considerable items, and unless the supply of
bones is reliable and convenient this source of meat foods is not to
be depended upon.
The best way to feed beef-scrap is to keep a supply in the hopper so
the chickens may help themselves. In case meat food is given,
bone-meal, fed in small quantities, will form a valuable addition to
their ration. Infertile eggs from incubators, as well as by-products
of the dairy, can be used to help out in the animal-food portion of
the ration. Chickens may be given all the milk they will drink. It
is generally recommended that this be given clabbered.
Feeding Laying Hens.
The food requirements of a laying hen are very like those of a
growing chicken. One addition to the list is, however, required for
egg production, which is lime, of which the shell of the egg is
formed. In the summer-time hens on the range will find sufficient
lime to supply their needs. In the winter-time they should be
supplied with more lime than the food contains. Crushed oyster shell
answers the purpose admirably.
A supply of green food is one of the requisites of successful winter
feeding. Every farmer should see that a patch of rye, crimson
clover, or some other winter green crop is grown near his
chicken-house. Vegetables and refuse from the kitchen help out in
this matter, but seldom furnish a sufficient supply. Vegetables may
be grown for this purpose. Mangels and sugar-beets are excellent.
Cabbage, potatoes and turnips answer the purpose fairly well.
Mangels are fed by splitting in halves and sticking to nails driven
in the wall.
Clover and alfalfa are excellent chicken feeds and should be used in
regions where winter crops will not keep green. The leaves that
shatter off in the mow are the choicest portion for chicken feeding,
and may be fed by scalding with hot water and mixing in a mash. Hens
will eat good green alfalfa if fed dry in a box.
The feeding of sprouted oats should be practiced when no other green
food is available. Oats may be prepared for this purpose by
thoroughly soaking in warm water and being kept in a warm, damp
place for a few days. Feed when the sprouts are a couple of inches
long.
Almost all grains are suitable foods for hens. Corn, on account of
its cheapness and general distribution, is the best. The general
prejudice against corn feeding should be directed rather against
feeding one grain alone without the other forms of food. If hens are
supplied with green foods, with mineral matter, some form of meat
food, and are forced to take sufficient amount of exercise, the
danger from overfatness, due to the feeding of a reasonable amount
of corn, need not be feared.
As has already been emphasized, the variety of food given is more
essential than the kind. Do not feed one grain all the time. The
more variety fed the better. Corn and Kaffir-corn, being cheap
grains, will form the major portion of the ration, but, even if much
higher in price, it will pay to add a portion of such grain as
wheat, barley, oats or buckwheat.
Cleanliness.
The advice commonly given in poultry papers would require one to
exercise nearly as much pains in the cleaning of a chicken house as
in the cleaning of a kitchen. Such advice may be suitable for the
city poultry fanciers, but it is out of place when given to the
farmer. Poultry raising, the same as other farm work, must pay for
the labor put into it, and this will not be the case if attempt is
made to follow all the suggestions of the theoretical poultry
writer.
The ease with which the premises may be kept reasonably free from
litter and filth is largely a matter of convenient arrangement. The
handiest plan from this view-point is the colony system. In this the
houses are moved to new locations when the ground becomes soiled. If
the chicken-house is a stationary structure it should be built away
from other buildings, scrap-piles, fence corners, etc., so that the
ground can be frequently freshened by plowing and sowing in oats,
rye or rape. The ground should be well sloped, so that the water
draining from the surface may wash away much of the filth that on
level ground would accumulate.
Cleanliness indoors can be simplified by proper arrangement. First,
the house must be dry. Poultry droppings, when dry, are not a source
of danger if kept out of the feed. They should be removed often
enough to prevent foul odors. Drinking vessels should be rinsed out
when refilled and not allowed to accumulate a coat of slime. If a
mash is fed, feed-boards should be scraped off and dried in the sun.
Sunshine is a cheap and efficient disinfectant.
The advice on the control of lice and the method of handling sick
chickens that has been given in the main section of the book, will
apply as well on the farm as on the commercial poultry plant.
Certainly the farmer's time is too valuable to fool with the details
of poultry therapeutics.
Farm Chicken Houses.
The following notes on poultry houses apply to Iowa and Nebraska,
where the winters are severe, and similar climates. Farther south
and east the farmer should use the same style of houses as
recommended for egg farms. A chicken house just high enough for a
man to walk erectly and a floor space of about 3 square feet per hen
is advisable. This requires a house 12 by 24 for 100 hens, or 10 by
16 for 50.
Lands sloping to south or southeast, and that which dries quickly
after a rain, will prove the most suitable for chickens. A gumbo
patch should not be selected as a location for poultry. Hogs and
hens should not occupy the same quarters, in fact, should be some
distance apart, especially if heavy breeds of chickens are kept.
Hens should be removed from the garden, but may be near an orchard.
Chicken-houses should be separated from tool-houses, stables, and
other outbuildings.
Grading for chicken-houses is not commonly practiced, but this is
the easiest means of preventing dampness in the house and is
necessary in heavy soils. The ground-level may be raised with a plow
and scraper, or the foundation of the house may be built and filled
with dirt.
A stone foundation is best, but where stone is expensive may be
replaced by cedar, hemlock or Osage orange posts, deeply set in the
ground. Small houses can be built on runners as described for colony
houses for an egg farm.
Floors are commonly constructed of earth, boards or cement. Cement
floors are perfectly sanitary and easy to keep clean. The objections
to their common use is the first cost of good cement floors. Cheaply
constructed floors will not last. Board floors are very common and
are preferred by many poultrymen, but if close to the ground they
harbor rats, while if open underneath they make the house cold.
Covering wet ground by a board floor does not remedy the fault of
dampness nearly so effectually as would a similar expenditure spent
in raising the floor and surrounding ground by grading. All things
considered, the dirt floor is the most suitable. This should be made
by filling in above the outside ground-level. The drainage will be
facilitated if the first layer of this floor be of cinders, small
rocks or other coarse material. Above this layer should be placed a
layer of clay, wet and packed hard, so the hens cannot scratch it
up, or a different plan may be used and the floor constructed of a
sandy or loamy soil of which the top layer can be renewed each year.
The walls of a chicken-house must first of all be wind-tight. This
may be attained in several ways. Upright boards with cracks battened
is the cheapest method. Various kinds of lap-siding give similar
results. The single-board wall may be greatly improved by lining
with building-paper. This should be put on between the studding and
siding. Lath should also be used to prevent the paper bagging out
from the wall. The double-board wall is the best where a warm house
is desired.
It should be made by siding up outside the studding with cheap
lumber. On this is placed a layer of roofing paper and over it the
ordinary siding. The windows of a chicken-house should furnish
sufficient light that the hens may find grain in the litter on
cloudy days. Too much glass in a poultry house makes the house cold
at night, and it is a needless expenditure.
The subject of roofing farm buildings may be summarized in this
advice: Use patent roofing if you know of a variety that will last;
if not, use shingles. Shingle roofs require a steeper pitch than do
roofs of prepared roofing. A shingle roof can be made much warmer by
using tightly laid sheathing covered with building-paper. Especial
care should be taken that the joints at the eaves of the house are
tightly fitted.
The object of ventilating a chicken-house is to supply a reasonable
amount of fresh air, and, equally important, to keep the house dry.
Ventilation should not be by cracks or open cupolas. Direct drafts
of air are injurious, and ventilation by such means is always the
greatest when the least needed.
Schemes of ventilation by a system of pipes are expensive and
unnecessary. The latest, best and cheapest plan for providing
ventilation is the curtain front house for the north, and the open
front house for the more southerly sections. The curtain front house
is giving way to the open front with a somewhat smaller opening in
sections, as far north as Connecticut.
Make all roosts on the same level. The ladder arrangement is a
nuisance and offers no advantage. Arrange the roosts so that they
may be readily removed for cleaning. Do not fill the chicken-house
full of roosts. Put in only enough to accommodate the hens, and let
these be on one side of the house. The floor under the roosts should
be separated from the feeding floor by a board set on edge.
For laying flocks the nests must be clean, secluded and plentiful.
Boxes under the roost-platform will answer, but a better plan is to
have the nest upon a shelf along a side wall so arranged as to allow
the hen to enter from the rear side. Nests should be constructed so
that all parts are accessible to a white-wash brush. The less
contrivances in a chicken-house, the better.
The farmer can get along very well without any chicken-yard at all.
It will, however, prove a very convenient arrangement if a small
yard is attached to the chicken-house. The house should be arranged
to open either into the yard or out into the range. This yard may be
used for fattening chickens or confining cockerels, or perhaps to
enclose the flock during the ripening of a favorite tomato or berry
crop.
THE END.