408 



Farm Land for Poultry Keepers. [oct., 



difficult to obtain permission until . harvest is over, though 

 experience has shown, that the time can be greatly extended 

 without any harm resulting. Farmers, however, can hardly be 

 expected to take the risk, if risk there be, with stock not their own, 

 whatever they may do when the fowls are owned by them. 



The terms commonly arranged between farmer and poultry- 

 keeper are that the latter shall pay a rent for the privilege 

 accorded him, varying in accordance with the local conditions. 

 As much as ros. per acre per annum has been known to be paid, 

 but that was by a breeder of high-class stock. A more general rate 

 is-2s. per acre, or ios. per house per annum, the latter not to con- 

 tain more than twenty-five fowls. In either case the number of 

 birds per acre should be strictly restricted. On permanent 

 pasture, where other stock are kept, the number should not 

 exceed four or five per acre ; but on meadows cut for hay or 

 arable land ten to fifteen fowls per acre can be kept quite safely. 

 The more kept, within reasonable limits, the better for the farmer, 

 as he is securing a greater amount of manure. The arrangement 

 made provides that the houses shall be moved about in accord- 

 ance with the instructions of the farmer, and in order to prevent 

 injury to the herbage the removal should be twice or three times 

 per week. Hence the use of small portable houses is essential. 

 If permanent houses were placed on the fields the grass therein 

 and immediately around would be useless or killed, and there 

 would not be that wide distribution of manure which yields the 

 best results. On the other hand, the poultry-keeper must have 

 access to the fields for the purposes of his work. Fie gains not 

 merely by extension of his operations, but by the fact that the 

 more widely his fowls are distributed the healthier they will be 

 and the less they will cost to feed, as they obtain a great amount 

 of natural food, more especially where the land is fresh and 

 kept in good heart. Should the farmer who has entered into 

 such an arrangement have arable land available, it would be 

 mutually advantageous if f he houses are placed thereon when 

 ploughing is taking place, for the birds would clean the land, 

 and by their activity improve its condition, whilst the poultry- 

 keeper would find his fowls cost him a much less sum for food 

 than when they are kept upon pasture land. It is thought that 

 a trial of the system which has succeeded so well in the North 



