AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
41 
Our artist has sketched a picture not uncom¬ 
mon among American farm scenes. No farm 
establishment would be complete without its 
poultry yard, and its piggery. The frugal 
housewife well knows the advantage of a basket 
of eggs for the Store, to be returned in a few 
yards of muslin or calico, a spool or two of 
thread, a packet of tea, and sundry other “ no¬ 
tions.” She has received many six-pences and 
shillings of “ pin-money ” from the peripatetic 
chicken merchant. She fully appreciates the 
convenience of plenty of fowls in the roost, al¬ 
ways ready to be drawn upon for an extra dish, 
when an unexpected friend arrives. Her poultry 
are therefore sure to receive their regular rations, 
whether the vegetable and flower garden be neg¬ 
lected or not. The artist has introduced into 
the back-ground the never absent trough and 
feeding porkers. The two objects suggest the 
inquiry, which pays the best, poultry or pork ? 
Much may be said on both sides of the ques¬ 
tion, but as a rule we should decide in favor of 
poultry, notwithstanding the argument, consid¬ 
ered as unanswerable, viz.: that the pigs will 
consume and turn to profitable account a large 
amount of garoage that no other animal will 
eat. This is an error. Barn-yard fowls will 
devour almost every species of garbage that the 
porkers will not turn up their noses at —salt kitch¬ 
en slops excepted. The only serious objection 
to poultry is, that they do not flourish well 
when kept together in large numbers. But this 
objection is without force on most farms where 
only a hundred fowls, or so, are kept, and 
around the thousands of smaller homesteads, 
where a pig is considered necessary as a scaven¬ 
ger. It seems not to be understood that fowls are 
preferable for the same purpose. We will let a 
subscriber speak. Here is part of a letter just at 
hand from J. C. Thompson, of Staten Island: 
“Most families in the country, and on the out¬ 
skirts of cities, think they must keep one or 
more pigs, to use up the offal of the family—or 
because it is the ‘custom of the country.’ 
Having tried pigs, and become disgusted with 
the trouble, labor, expense, filth and noise—to 
say nothing of the inferiority of pork to eggs 
and poultry—I abandoned the former for the 
latter; the result has been quite satisfactory, 
and after several years trial, I feel confident the 
advantage is decidedly in favor of poultry. 
Here is my last year’s account:—January 1, 
1861, stock on hand, 70 fowls, of which fif¬ 
teen died during the winter, from unknown 
causes, leaving me 52 laying hens. From 
these I obtained in January, 409 eggs; in Fe¬ 
bruary, 439; in March, 681; in April, 959; 
in May, 835; in June, 801; in July, 719; in 
August, 603; in September, 421; in October, 
332; in November, 286; and in December, 440. 
Total, from 52 hens, 6,925 eggs—equivalent, in 
bulk, to seven barrels, as a barrel packed for 
market contains just about 1,000 eggs. About 
8 eggs from the Leghorn or Black Spanish 
breeds, weigh a pound. My 6,925 eggs therefore 
weighed 865 pounds. Allowing the hens to 
weigh 5 pounds apiece, they each laid, on the 
average, three times their - weight in eggs alone. 
As they hatched full a hundred chicks, the 
weight of which, when ready for the table, must 
have been Impounds each, the whole amount of 
food produced was over a thousand pounds, 
notwithstanding I killed off part of the old 
stock in June, July, and August, depending on 
the Spring-hatched chicks, which began to lay 
in August, to keep up a supply of eggs and re¬ 
place those killed off. When we consider the 
amount of food (of the very best kind) produced 
in one year, from so small a stock to start on, 
and then, too, the stock left whole at the end of 
the year—the advantage of poultry over pigs 
can be seen at a glance. 
To produce 1,000 pounds of pork, will require 
a vast amount of labor, a vast quantity of food, 
and any quantity of noise—giving fresh food 
for only a short time, and salt food for the 
balance of the year—and the stock not left 
whole to start on again, as in the case of poul¬ 
try. The product in eggs was more than 6,925, 
perhaps over 7,000, as I detected a boy that had 
access to the hen-house for some time, in stealing 
them. The number named was actually col¬ 
lected. My stock is principally Leghorn; and 
it now costs $3 per month to feed 75 head. As 
some may desire to know how the hens are 
managed, I send a brief description.” [We will 
try to find room next month for the details of 
Mr. T.’s practice; it is well to know first what 
is done, but the how is not less important.—E d.] 
