234 



THE GARDEJN AND FIELD. 



October, 1913. 



Poultry Costs. 



On the labour question, the re- 

 port of the last competition states 

 " that on a comm'ercial plant 

 birds would be in large llocks and 

 attendence labour would cost very 

 much less." This is fortunate, for 

 otherwise poultry keeping would 

 be equivalent to insolvency. It 

 adds that this fact is mentioned 

 " to prevent misunderstanding." 

 One is, of course, lost in admira- 

 tion of the excellence of the in- 

 tention, but regrets that it does 

 not lead to something more defi- 

 nite. Of course it is admitted 

 that there is a difference, but this 

 difference may be a great deal 

 over-estimated and there two sides 

 to the question. The costs are 

 admittedly greater, but what 

 about the results. The actual pre- 

 paration of the food takes the 

 same time per bird whether fed in 

 six liocks or thirty, the time of 

 collecting eggs is much the same 

 per egg, whether you lift six or 

 thirty per nest, it is only the dis- 

 tribution which counts. In any 

 case, one has to do a lot of wall<.- 

 ing where eight hundred birds are 

 concerned, for it is not usual, at 

 all events not at Government 

 Colleges, to dump mesh about in 

 barrow loads or wheat in sacks 

 full. This, however, is not the im*- 

 portant point. 



Are we not rather given to over- 

 looking the difference that this sub- 

 division m.akes or may make to 

 the results ? Would thirty birds 

 penned together lay, five times as 

 many eggs as six together ? Gene- 

 ral opinion says no, and general 

 opinion is often right. It certain- 

 ly would be inte'resting and possibly 

 very instructive to know at what 

 ])oint the limit of maximum indi- 

 vid| lal production per pen inmate 

 is reached and at what point it 

 ))avb to increase the number of 

 pens rather than number of in- 

 mates. What does our depart- 

 ment say ? As far as we know, 

 it follows the historic example of 

 the .sailors' parrot — we refer, of 

 course, to the respectable siiilors' 

 parrot — not the other one. Any- 

 way, the report has nothing to 

 say on this score. It finds room, 

 however, to mention that "at a 

 recent conference of i)oult)j:y in- 

 structors and investigators from 

 twcntv-eight cot'intries, it was 

 stated, that the work of our 

 South Australian poultry station 

 and competitions was well known." 

 We have a glimmering idea that it 

 was Major Norton who made that 

 remark. In any case, it leaves a 

 good deal to be desired in the way 



of detail. For instance, the work 

 of the Adelaide burglars is " well 

 known " but does not necessarily 

 meet with the untirialified approval 

 of those most interested, and we 

 noticed in an Adelaide paper the 

 other day, an exhilarating com- 

 munication from a north country 

 correspondent, that a local resi- 

 dent was " well known" but it 

 went on to say that he was leay- 

 ing in custody of the police, and 

 rather plainly hinted that his de- 

 l)arture was not regarded as an 

 irreparable loss. To be " well 

 known " may of course be highly 

 desirable. 



There is one point we rather en- 

 vy those assorted invi3stigators 

 and instructors, and that is their 

 apparent knowledg^e of the work 

 of the South Australian poultry 

 stations. This hardly seems fair, 

 for if one asked, say, the first 

 dozen native poultrymen one met, 

 replies would be in about, the fol- 

 lowing proportions — Two would 

 be enthusiaistic admirers, a trifle 

 vagiue perhaps, but quite genuine. 

 Two would not know the^- had ex- 

 isted. Two would probably say, 

 " Oh, just messing roi'.md and 

 spending money." Two would be 

 anxious to see a report. Two 

 might be hoping to sell a little 

 stock, and would beg to be ex- 

 cused, and two might express their 

 opinion in language unfitted for 

 pi'iblication. 



— They would not be Missed. — 



Referring again to the six as 

 against 30 or 300 per cent. Is it 

 not rather feeble that, with the 

 materials lying at hand in the 

 competitions to settle this ques- 

 tion and others of more import- 

 ance once and for all, without dis- 

 turbing the competitive side in the 

 least, nothing has been done. The 

 doings of the lower 50 per cent, of 

 the pens after the first four or six 

 months, is of no conceivable in- 

 terest or importance to anyone 

 not -even to competitors. Yet rea- 

 sonably used, by being split up 

 into a number of contrasting pens 

 of • yar}dng numbers, they could 

 have been made of very great ser- 

 vice to poultry keepers generally. 

 What's more simple than to take 

 say, the last six pens. From each 

 l>en take one l)ird and make a pen 

 of six, then two birds from each 

 of the original six pens and make 

 into a pen of 12, the remaining 

 three from each pen to form a pen 

 of 18. Make, say, ten of these sets 

 of pens, that is, 10 of six each, 

 10 of 12 each, and 10 of eighteen 

 each. That would take the 

 36(5 worst scorers out of the com- 

 petition proper. They would all be 



poor layers, but each set would be 

 approximately of p'erfectly equal 

 power. One couldn't get better 

 material for the work > and it 

 wants doing. There are, of course, 

 other matters which might, to a 

 very great extent, have been 

 settled hy this time. Twenty-five 

 pounds prize mcMey split up 

 amongst the owners of these com- 

 parative teams, and the advan- 

 tage of not having their heroic 

 efforts to dodge the bottom' place 

 published every week, would, we 

 imagine, be welcomed by competi- 

 tors. 



During the last five years about 

 2,o<io birds have each spent six or 

 eight months at Roseworthy at a 

 cost of some hundreds of pounds 

 without the slightest benefit to 

 themselves, their owners, or the 

 public. Has the idea ever oc- 

 curred to the Department that 

 these birds might have been profit- 

 ably used ? Apparently not, or if 

 so they have very success- 

 fully smothered its prompting. 

 Hawkesbury, as usual, are taking 

 the lead in this matter, 1 though on 

 somewhat different lines. 



^ 



An Interesting Comparason. 



Whether it is wise to keep hens 

 over their second year is a ques- 

 tion, which has been a good deal 

 discussed, the co'rrect answer, no 

 doubt, depends on circumstances. 

 The Hawkesbury College competi- 

 tions have given us a lot of infor-" 

 mation on the subject, and it is 

 interesting to compare those fi- 

 gures with some reported by the 

 iMaryland Kxpt. Station. A Hock 

 of ho jJiiUets selected from a larger 

 ilock of 140 White L/eghiaens, was 

 used for the experiment. During 

 the pullet year the 60 birds used 

 lor the experiment produced 10.280 

 eggs, or an average of 171.3 eggs 

 per head. In the second year they 

 produced 149.05 per bird, and in 

 the third year 115 eggs per bird. 

 Thus, while the decrease in the 

 numl)er of 'eggs per bird for the 

 second year as compared with the 

 first year was 22, the decrease in 

 the third year as compared with 

 the first year was 56.2 eggs per 

 bird. The report concludes that 

 the difference in second year birds 

 is not snflicientlv marked to justi- 

 fy the discarding of second year 

 hens, especially as such stock is 

 well .suited for breeding purposes. 

 The Hawkesbury averages are : — 

 1st year, 167 ; 2nd year, 133 ; 3rd 

 year, 115. This is for the full 

 series of competitions, eleven of 

 I year, six of two years, and thre» 

 of three y«ars, and for all bweds. 



