34 



the houses daily or frequently is a heavy item in the course of a year 

 and if the house is constructed right, ventilated properly, and the 

 fowls are normal, is quite unnecessary. This doctrine, I know, seems 

 almost repulsive to those to whom the idea of dirt of any kind accu- 

 mulating seems intolerable and the practice inexcusable. But with 

 due regard for the conditions mentioned there is really no valid objec- 

 tion to the time-honored practice of cleaning the poultry house only 

 once or twice a year. 



Most of the sites on which poultry houses are placed in Massachu- 

 setts are well drained. The soil is light and sandy, and makes the 

 best kind of floor for poultry. The moisture in the droppings is ab- 

 sorbed or evaporates (or is absorbed and evaporates). The dry drop- 

 pings mixed with the earth of the floor and with finely broken litter, 

 and covered over with a layer of coarser litter, give off no odor, nor 

 does the presence of such material in the floor where the hens are fed 

 have injurious effects on grain with which it comes in contact unless 

 grain accumulates and lies there too long, and with litter becomes damp 

 and heats. Ordinary good judgment in feeding and ventilation is all 

 that is necessary to avoid trouble in this connection. It should be 

 noted that the conditions described are quite different from those that 

 obtain where droppings accumulate without mixture with earth or 

 litter, or without opportunity to dry as they accumulate. 



If a poultry house is in a permanent location it ought to be sufficient 

 to clean out all droppings and litter every spring, and in the fall take 

 out the soil as deep as it is mixed with droppings and refill with fresh 

 earth. The expense of doing this is much less than the cost of frequent 

 cleanings. Whenever it can be done it is better to use colony houses, 

 with or without yards, and move them every year or two. On many 

 farms in England it is customary to use smaller colony houses than 

 are commonly found in this country, — houses about 6 feet square, — 

 keeping a dozen to fifteen hens in each and moving a short distance at 

 frequent intervals. By this plan poultry run on grass benefits the 

 grass without destroying it. It does not at present seem likely that 

 this plan will be extensively adopted in this country. Land is cheaper 

 and labor dearer here than there. The tendency is to larger flocks, 

 and even when provision is made for moving houses they are rarely 

 shifted as often as it was planned to move them. The colon} r house 

 moved as often as necessary to keep the land from becoming foul seems 

 the best plan for New England farms. One of the drawbacks to 

 poultry keeping here in recent years is the condition of land, so much 

 of which has had poultry on it constantly for a long term of years. It 

 is often hard to get people to believe that the fault is in the land con- 

 ditions. I have seen good poultrymen in constant trouble for several 

 years on land they could not be convinced was injurious to their 

 poultry, speculating, studying and trying all kinds of experiments to 

 find out what was wrong with the birds or the feed. Then when at 

 last they did move the poultry to another part of the farm their troubles 

 seemed to vanish. Growing poultry constantly on the same land is 

 like growing any other crop, with the difference that while the ordinary 

 vegetable crop takes away from the soil, poultry are adding to the soil 

 matter which is poisonous to them when soil over which they run is 

 heavily charged with it, but which is of great value to vegetation. If 

 the farmers of Massachusetts would plan to rotate poultry with vege- 

 table crops, or keep poultry on the same ground with vegetable crops 

 they would soon find that the poultry-carrying capacity of their land 

 was greater than they had supposed, that many of the ills poultry on 

 contaminated land are heir to they do not suffer when on new land, 



