July, 1913 



exactly of a ».oini)luiicutaiy na- 

 ture. In this coiuicction wo no 

 tioc that a letter in roferciicc to 

 the cc)n.'i>etitiou was sent, prcsiim 

 ably by one of the loinijetiltirs, to 

 one of the evening papers. It 

 seems that a copy of it was for- 

 warcU-d to the Toultrv Department 

 so that the reply mifrht appear at 

 the same time as the letter. To 

 jmljje .by resnlts as reportetl, 

 the said department found that 

 there was nothing to answer, or 

 IHjrhaps — too much. A direct re- 

 pl)- might have been courteous, 

 but it isn't our funeral, in fact it 

 doesn't seem to be anybody's, ex- 

 cept the man who wrote the let- 

 ter, if he happens to !>« in a hurry 

 to see himself in print or for the 

 information he was presumably on 

 the hunt for. Since then we no- 

 tice in the official report that the 

 birds are to be kept confined to the 

 houses for some time. As far as 

 we are aware, this is the first an- 

 nouncement of such intention on 

 the part of the IDepartnient. If so, 

 it does not appear to have been 

 quite as candid as it mig-ht have 

 been or to have played the game 

 quite fairly. We imagine that had 

 this confinement been a generally 

 understood condition, manv breed- 

 ers would have made some altera- 

 tion 'in the preparation of their 

 team. The argument that it is 

 the same for all is hardh- sound. 

 To take up open run bred birds 

 and pen them up, is to add con- 

 siderably to the chances of a dan- 

 gerous moult. It is certainh- 

 more likely to result in trouble 

 than to take birds reared on the 

 confined S3-stem and put them in 

 a similar house somewhere else, 

 and. if there are any " confined sys- 

 tem ' ' competitors, they* may quite 

 reasonably bless the Diepartment 

 for its sudden conversion to the 

 beauties of the system, od perhaps 

 only for its unpreparedness. Jtlow- 

 ever, as we told a competitor, it 

 is no good crying over spilt milk, 

 supposing any' such accident to 

 have occurred, and if all competi- 

 tors got a level start at Paralield, 

 as presumably thej- did, there does 

 not appear to be much to growl 

 about. Even Mr. Lawrie cannot 

 perform miracles. 



Discussing competitions a suc- 

 cessful breeder recently suggested 

 that the time had come to dis- 

 continue the admission of replace 

 birds in competition pens. His 

 argument was that constitutional 

 strength now played so important 

 a part and that ovarian troubles 

 were so common, that it was time 



THE GARDEN AND FIELD. 



to encourage; those Vjrcedcrs who 

 had most clo.sely studied the tpies- 

 (ion of vitality and constitutional 

 \-igour in their birds and that it 

 was reasonable to penalise those 

 whose stock had been brought to 

 thii borderline of a break-down. It 

 is an interesting i)oint, one on 

 which much might be said for and 

 against. The cjuestion was of 

 course a good deal discussed in 

 earlier com.petition days but the 

 rule ot allowing replacements, it 

 deserved, or requiring breeders to 

 .send extra birds became pretty 

 general. Conditions have some- 

 what altered. Deaths used to 

 occur from general causes now they 

 appear to be most frequently due 

 to some form of break-down 

 in the organs most directlv con- 

 cerned in egg i)roduction. It would 

 .seem that breeders hav'e largely 

 eliminated the danger of casual 

 illness and d,eath. They hava bred 

 greater vigour, a greater capacity 

 perhaps to manufacture eggs, but 

 a les.sened ability to lay them. 

 Nine tenths of the machine has 

 been improved, the remaining tenth 

 has not. In the olden days deaths 

 took place throughout the pens, 

 now the greater number occur in 

 those which are laying heavih', at 

 least so we are informed. Whether 

 this actually is so or not we do 

 not know. The strength oi a 

 chain is that of its weakest link, 

 and the same thing largely applies 

 to a pen of birds. You can of 

 course repair the chain at a price 

 and replace a bird at Roseworthy 

 or in the home breeding pen — ^also 

 at a price but in the latter case it 

 may not be possible to catch up 

 with the mischief which ma\- have 

 been done. Accidents and unex- 

 pected mi-sfortunes occur we know, 

 in the best regulated concerns, but 

 we don't put our money in them 

 if we, know of this liability. So in 

 poultry most people would, we 

 imagine, prefer to breed from a 

 pen which did a 230 gait and lived 

 to the finish than one which broke 

 on the journey but landed a 2501 win- 

 ner — with two reserves in the team 

 and a couple of original members 

 in the cemeter}'. 



« 



CAPONS AGAIN. 



A correspondent to whom we re- 

 plied last month on this subject, 

 asks for further information, espe- 

 cially with regard to the fmancial 

 side of the question. Hei does not 

 appear to think that we gave ca- 

 ponising quite a fair deal a.s a pro- 

 fitable practice, and adds that he 



661 



thinks we were in error in saying 

 that the operation did not add to 

 the size and weight of l)irds .so 

 treated, and further adds that he 

 has heard that it is extensively 

 carried on in Anverica and tliat 

 poultry breeders there must find it 

 profitaljle. We would remind our 

 correspondent that we were not 

 discussing caponising generally, but 

 as applied to certain given con- 

 ditions. His question, brielly, put 

 as we rememl)er it wa.s — Would you 

 recommend anyone with a fair 

 sized flock of I/eghorns now return- 

 ing a satisfactory profit, to try to 

 improve their table qualities by 

 caponising or by cross breeding, 

 or to take up another breed better 

 adapted naturally for table pur- 

 poses and try to push this side of 

 the business as well. Our answer 

 was and is — No. When a man is 

 running a concern successfully it 

 would seem to be pretty poor 

 policy to make an}- radical altera- 

 tion in the method of working] it. 

 Extend by all means, but on the 

 same lines which have already 

 been proved and tested. With re- 

 gard to the financial side of the 

 caponising question, which is the 

 important one, it ma.y be men- 

 tioned that the costs of poultry 

 feeding are quite different from the 

 costs of going to a picture show. 

 In the one case they depend on 

 somebody else, in the other, on the 

 man himself and many varying 

 conditions, vet there is a tendency 

 to consider one as fixed as the 

 other. If one puts the mean aver- 

 age food cost of raising poultry 

 with wheat at 3/6 per bushel at 

 4%d. per ft., he will, we believe, 

 be as near the mark as it is pos- 

 sible to get. How much more or 

 less will depend on the feeder and 

 his working conditions. The price 

 received is even more difficult to 

 arrive at. We should say that in 

 putting the mean average under 

 auction conditions at 6d. per lb. 

 live weight and at i/- pec lb. 

 dressed weight for private sale, we 

 should be on the reasonably safe 

 side. Until proved otherwise the 

 cost and return of capon ilesh 

 must be taken to be the same as 

 that of cockerel meat. We regret 

 that we 'cannot give our corres- 

 pondent more exact iniocmation 

 but take some comfort in the 

 tbought that nobody else can. 

 " Circumstances alter cases " as 

 milch or more in poultry feeding 

 as they do in an3-thing else. For 

 instance, we could give the actual 

 cash out of pocket cost of 250 

 dozen eggs and rather over 500 lb. 

 of cockerel meat for the last 

 twelve months, but as for the last 



(Continued on page 664). 



REPOUACEMENTS. 



An Interesting Subjet. 



