114 FIRST LJSSSONS IN POULTKY KEEPING. 



Some Scientific Fallacies. 



It is not necessary to explain the theory in every detail. Of more importance here are cer- 

 tain fallacies promulgated in connection with the teachings of scientific feeding. Chief of 

 these is the oft repeated statement that a fowl fed on a single grain corn being mo*t often 

 used in illustration would in time starve to death, because corn did not supply the elements it 

 needed in proper proportion. Like most fallacies, this is a perversion of the facts upon which 

 it is supposed to rest. Neither corn nor any other single article of food makes as good a diet 

 for fowls as a ration in which a variety of grains is used. Nor is a grain ration, though com- 

 posed of many different grains, as good as a ration in which vegetables and meat are used to 

 supplement the grain foods, but the bad effects of poor rations are not so conspicuous as some 

 say, nor is the difference in results always as marked as some would have us believe. 



To show the absurdity of the common opinion that corn, as compared with such grains as 

 wheat, oats, etc., is very deficient in "flesh forming" elements, and contains a dangerous 

 surplus of fats and starchy elements, let us make a few comparisons, taking figures from the 

 tables in " Poultry-Craft," which were made from U. S. government bulletins, giving average 



analyses of food stuffs: 



Nutritive Potential 



Grain. Protein. Carbohydrates. Fats. ratio. energy. 



Corn, 10.4% 70.3% 5% 1:7.9. 106 



Wheat, 11.9% 71.9% 2.1% 1:6.3 102 



Oats, 11.8% 59.7% 5% 1:6.1 96 



Barley, 12.4% 69.8% 1.8% 1:6 100 



Now it is plain that ordinary or average corn has in it a smaller percentage of protein than 

 any other of the grains in the list, and that its nutritive ratio is very much wider, and its 

 potential energy higher. And if we accept as right the standards of nutritive ratio and 

 potential energy given by the writers on scientific feeding, we must admit that corn is a very 

 bad and dangerous food. 



But in regard to these standards the position I take is this: So far as I can discover, not one 

 of these would-be authorities has in a scientific way established standards for poultry feeding, 

 and the standards which they use, adapted from other lines of feeding, require combinations 

 which no practical feeder would think of using. 



It might be said that this was because of the ignorance of the practical men, but as far as 

 I am able to learn, no " authority " on scientific feeding has ever done any feeding that by its 

 results attracted attention or made a reputation as a good and skillful feeder. 



Leaving out of the question then what the "scientists" say about corn as com pared with 

 these other grains, let us inquire what practical feeders find they can do with it in actual 

 practice. 



The four grains mentioned above have certain physical characteristics which have to be con- 

 sidered in feeding them. The prominent characteristic of corn is the size of its grains, an 

 ordinary grain of corn being about five times as large as an ordinary grain of wheat. Hence, 

 a fowl eating corn will pick up what it wants (provided the supply is sufficient) with about 

 one-fifth the effort, and in about one-fifth the time, that it would require to get a meal of wheat. 

 This means that fowls fed whole corn do not take as much exercise as they feed as those fed 

 smaller grains. In this point we find a reason why whole corn is not the most desirable food 

 that is independent of its composition. The same objection would apply to any other grain if 

 of like size. 



To overcome this objection to the form in which corn grows the corn is cracked to different 

 degrees of fineness for fowls, and used in this form. I think it would be impossible for any- 

 one to show in practice any appreciable difference in results of the use of cracked corn and 

 wheat in moderate weather, while in extreme hot weather It would give less satisfactory, and 

 in extreme cold weather more satisfactory results than wheat, all other constituents of the 

 ration remaining the same. 



Nature's Checks and Balances. 



From the fact that under what might be called average conditions it makes no appreciable 

 difference in results whether corn (cracked) or wheat is fed it is reasonable to conclude thit 



