No. 4.] POULTRY OX SMALL FARMS. 417 



directly for the tbwls, whoever keeps i)()ultn' in close con- 

 fineiuent needs to keep houses clean and to turn over the 

 earth in the yards at frecjuent intervals, and in small yards 

 this work has to be done mostly with spade or fork. In all 

 these ways the average time per fowl devoted to the care of 

 a tlock of poultry is increased ; so that, while we find many 

 poultrymen using intensive methods fully occui)ying their 

 time with the care of 400 to 500 hens, we find farmers keep- 

 ing hens on large farms on the colony plan doing the routine 

 work of caring for 1,200 or more hens as a part of the morn- 

 ing and evening chores, and making more money actually, 

 and very much moi'c for time consumed than intensive 

 poultr}'men do, though the latter can show averages per fowl 

 that make the common averages by colony methods look 

 small. 



Another point of difference between the two systems which 

 should be emphasized in this connection is that, to be suc- 

 cessful, intensive methods require much greater skill and 

 more experience than are needed to make poultr}^ kee[)ing 

 profitable under less artificial conditions. So it ha})pens 

 that, while the poultryman using intensive liiethods finds 

 that, even with land, capital and the wish to extend opera- 

 tions indefinitely, he is limited by the difficulty, often 

 amounting to impossibility, of getting help it will pay him 

 to use, the colony farmer's operations are, generally speak- 

 ing, limited onlv l)y the number of fowls his land will carry 

 by his system. lie uses ordinary fiirm help, — men who do 

 the })Oultry work as " chores," and work in the fields through 

 the day. Some of these men are, of course, better " hands " 

 with the poultry than others ; but the advantages of natural 

 conditions offset all ordinary consequences of inefficiency to 

 such an. extent that the close supervision required on inten- 

 sive poultr}' plants where help is employed is not necessary, 

 and the average farm hand makes an average good poultry- 

 man. 



I have given this extended illustration of differences be- 

 tween the system appro})riate for the poultryman under 

 necessity of keeping fowls in close confinement and that used 

 by farmers, who, with only such modifications or elaborations 



