FIRST LESSONS IN POULTRY KEEPING. 115 



the differences between them which analysis shows have not the significance attached to them 

 by those who consider wheat a good and corn a bad food for poultry. 



We have then in a very large class of instances the same results from rations which chem- 

 ically show a difference which if each food element could be used only for its special purpose 

 should also appear in the results. 



Why does it not appear in the results? 



Because the adaptation of each kind of food elements to its special purposes is not rigid. In 

 the digestion and assimilation of food a shortage of one kind of elements is made up, within 

 limits, from an excess of another kind, or failing that from reserves in the system of the 

 animal or fowl. Just what the limits are within which the fowl can adapt the food it takes 

 to its wants we do not know. 



We may reasonably conclude that they are not fixed limits, but vary under different condi- 

 tions and in different fowls. What we do know is that using the common food articles used 

 by poultrymen in about the proportions in which they are mostly used, we are in absolutely 

 no danger of any of the evils which " scientific " writers on poultry feeding assert are sure to 

 result from improperly balanced rations. If feeding in this way we have trouble it is pretty 

 sure to be due to other causes than the composition of the ration. 



The Scientific Rules Don't Work. 



I have used corn and wheat in the above illustration because wheat is generally considered 

 the best single grain for poultry, and corn, though more extensively used for poultry food than 

 all other grains combined, is by many writers called a very unsafe and bad poultry food; and 

 also because in corn we have the grain which is farthest from the assumed standards of scien- 

 tific feeding. If comparisons of results of feeding wheat and corn in rations in which each is 

 made the exclusive unground grain food indicate anything at all, they show that it is nearly 

 always possible for the fowl given a sufficient supply of either to adapt it to its needs, and 

 therefore that it is not necessary for the poultryman to try to balance the ration exactly before 

 feeding it. 



On the other side it is possible to show that oats, which theoretically are classed as nearest 

 the correct standard for feeding of any grains, are not eaten well by the fowls if they can get 

 other grains, and unless the oats are of much better quality than it is usually possible to get 

 in our markets, fowls will eat only enough of them to sustain life. So if we take wheat as 

 our standard grain food and compare other grains with it both as to composition chemically and 

 as to practical results in feeding, we find that the food which is theoretically poorer is practi- 

 cally better, and vice versa. 



From which it follows that the application of the assumed feeding standards is not a reliable 

 working rule. Whether other standards could be selected which would give us a rule that 

 would work accurately we need not here inquire. To date they have not been. 



Fixed Standards Not Applicable to Varying Conditions. 



There is another rnostr important point to consider: Fixed standards can only exactly fit 

 certain conditions. If it is necessary that the feeder should exactly adapt the ration to the 

 needs of the fowl, it is necessary that he should vary the ration to suit varying conditions, and 

 of course be must know just how and how much to vary it for any given conditions. 



In the simple, natural method of feeding, the feeder's aim is to give the fowls enough food 

 and in such simple variety that there will be be no serious shortage of any one element. 

 Beyond this he does not try to go, but leaves it to the appetite of the fowl to select what pro- 

 portions of each food shall be taken into the system, and to the natural operations of the 

 digestive system to further compensate for errors of appetite. 



The scientific feeder may say that by his system and by the use of his rules or his rations 

 the desired economies of food are made certain, and nothing left to the chances of the fowls' 

 appetites or functions, but this is all theory that has never been demonstrated. 



Still another obstacle to the practical application of the methods of scientific feeding is 

 found in the lack of uniformity in quality of poultry foods. The analyses given are average 

 analyses. As a matter of fact a lot of corn may contain more protein than the particular lot 



