1900 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER 
639 
THE WORK OF A LEGHORN PULLET. 
Her Cost and Her Crop. 
Prof. James Dryden, of the Utah Experiment Sta¬ 
tion (Logan), has conducted some interesting experi¬ 
ments with poultry. Some of the results are well 
given in Bulletin No. 67, from which our pictures, 
Figs. 233 and 234, are taken. The general plan of his 
experiments consisted in placing five good birds in a 
pen, where they remained by themselves during the 
entire year. Accurate records were kept of their 
food, so that it was possible to know just exactly 
what they had eaten, and careful records were also 
kept of the eggs they laid, the weight of the same, 
and other important matters. It will he impossible 
in an article of this length, to mention all the de¬ 
tails of this experiment. We merely wish to refer to 
one or two more interesting matters. In one pen five 
Leghorn pullets were kept. They were fed like the 
rest, but individual records of egg laying were also 
kept, so that it was possible to know just how many 
eggs each pullet laid. In order to determine this, the 
Eureka nest was used. This nest closes after the hen 
enters and lays her egg, so that it is impossible for 
another hen to come until the first hen has been 
taken out. The hens are carefully numbered, so that 
accurate records may be kept. 
Five pullets are pictured in Figs. 233 and 234, and 
their egg record is given below. In general appear¬ 
ance, it would be hard to pick out the robber hen, No. 
70, by her shape. This hen laid only 56 eggs, but 
probably consumed as much of the feed as No. 73, 
which laid 207. Eggs from No. 70 cost 13.8 cents 
per dozen, while those from No. 73 cost only 3.2 
cents. Yet, if the hens had been recorded separately, 
it would probably have been found that No. 70 ate 
considerably more than her sister. The theory that 
the outward shape of the hen indicates her capacity 
for laying, is somewhat shaken by the appearance of 
these birds. No. 72 is about our ideal Leghorn shape. 
In No. 70 there is too much space between the back of 
the neck and the root of the tail. We like to see a 
hen closely thrown together, with an erect, upright 
tail, and a well-rounded crop. No. 71 
has the shape of a good laying hen. It 
is impossible to tell just how No. 73 
would look with her head up and her 
whole body in a natural position. These 
pullets were late-hatched, Rose Comb 
Brown Leghorns, and were brought, 
from Ohio. 
The method of feeding them was 
about as follows: In the morning, a 
warm mash was fed. This was com¬ 
posed of two parts of bran, one part of 
ground oats, and one part of cornmeal, 
and was seasoned with salt or a small 
quantity of cayenne pepper. The hens 
shown in the picture received in addi¬ 
tion to this a small quantity of dried 
blood. About 10 o’clock, a small amount 
of grain was fed, wheat and oats alter¬ 
nating on different days. In the evening 
the hens were fed all the wheat they 
could eat up. Three times a week cut 
bones or butcher’s scraps were fed, and 
during the Winter cabbages were hung 
in the pens for the hens to pick on. An 
ingenious method of shading the hens 
in Summer was provided by planting 
Russian sunflowers in a section of each 
yard. These gave a good shade during 
the hot weather and also provided some 
of the food for the Winter. 
Some interesting things were learned 
from this experiment. For example, 
records were kept during the entire year, for the five 
hens shown in the picture. There has been some 
controversy as to how long it takes for the hen to 
form an egg. One of these hens in July laid five eggs 
in succession; then she skipped a day, and laid five 
more; then skipped a day and laid seven in succes¬ 
sion. Another laid five; then skipped a day, and laid 
three; then skipped a day, and laid three more, and 
then skipped a day and laid six in succession. It was 
found that the hens laid most eggs while eating most 
food. When the egg yield dropped off, the hens 
stopped eating, and when the egg yield again picked 
up, it was found that they were eating more than 
ever. Some curious facts are brought to light re¬ 
garding the cost of producing a pound of egg. For 
example, these five hens taken together averaged a 
total egg production of 17.66 pounds of egg per year. 
One dozen of their eggs weighed 1.35 pound. Pullets' 
eggs are not as heavy as those from hens, and eggs 
from these pullets averaged 1.8 ounce. The cost of 
producing a pound of egg was 3.65 cents. The five 
hens consumed during the entire year 5,494 ounces of 
feed. The average amount eaten by each hen per day 
was 2.84 ounces. The total food required by the five 
hens for one year was 798 ounces of mash, 2,926 
ounces of wheat, 395 ounces of oats, 409 ounces of 
corn, 400 ounces of sunflower seed, and 566 ounces of 
cut bones. Thus the hens averaged less than three 
ounces per day of feed, and the statement that a 
bushel of wheat will provide a year’s supply of food 
for a hen with a fair range is undoubtedly correct. 
It may be said that Wyandottes fed after much the 
same manner consumed an average of 3% ounces per 
day, while the Plymouth Rocks consumed about four 
ounces, and neither breed equaled the Leghorns in 
A GOOD BROWN LEGHORN HEN. Fig. 233. 
egg yield. The following table shows the records of 
the five pullets in condensed form: 
Cost 
Hen. Eggs. per doz. Value. 
No. 70 . 56 13.8 .58 
No. 71 202 3.8 2.30 
No. 72 201 3.9 2.27 
No. 73 207 3.2 2.40 
No. 74 .117 6.7 1.18 
It was assumed that the pullets all ate the same 
amount of food, though the chances are that some 
took more than others. As an average the year’s cost 
of feeding one bird was 64.6 cents. In another pen 
A ROBBER HEN AND HER MATES. Fig. 234. 
of Leghorns this yearly cost was reduced to 60 cents. 
A pen of Wyandottes averaged 81.6 cents, and one 
pen of Plymouth Rocks 91.9 cents. 
CEMENT FLOOR FOR HORSES. 
I am thinking of making some basement stables for 
horses in this way: First, pound down about three 
inches of stones, then cover with good concrete and 
cement. I then thought of making a slat or board frame 
for each stable, upon which the horse will stand, and 
have this movable, so that it can be taken out and 
cleaned underneath. Is there a better way? o. s. 
Factoryville, Pa. 
The most serious objection to this plan for the 
horse stable floor is the fact that as a general rule 
such devices for keeping the stable clean and sweet 
are only theoretically effective, owing to the fact that 
the movable platform, whether slatted or not, is sel¬ 
dom disturbed to clean out from beneath it; at least 
it is usually allowed to go for weeks together and ac¬ 
cumulate filth, which is continually fermenting. 
There is no plan which can be adopted to keep a 
stable floor clean which does not involve .the daily 
care. The concrete and cement floor for the planks 
to rest upon is somewhat better than an ordinary 
earth floor, in that it can be more thoroughly cleaned 
when an attempt is made to do so, the objection being 
that the attempt is not likely to be often enough 
made. 
There are those who are using the naked cement 
floor for horse stables, and claim that with plenty of 
bedding they are thoroughly satisfactory; that when 
horses get used to the cement they do not slip upon 
it more than they would upon a plank floor. It is 
certain that if slipping is not a serious matter the 
cement floor leaves little to be desired in the direc¬ 
tion of cleanliness and durability. Practically, how¬ 
ever, the great majority of carefully constructed 
stable floors for horses are made of heavy plank with 
their joints calked so as to make them watertight, as 
•the deck of a steamer is made watertight. I know of 
good farmers who use a stable floor for horses made 
out of rounded cobble stone bedded in heavy clay, 
and they are thoroughly satisfied with such a floor as 
being extremely durable, as holding the bedding under 
the horses, and as giving the horse a footing which 
does not admit of slipping readily. The most serious 
objection to this type of floor seems to be the uneven¬ 
ness of the surface in cleaning out the stable, making 
it more difficult for rapid, thorough cleaning. 
F. H. KING. 
THE FARMER AND A LICENSE. 
POLICE POWER.—Under the police power cities 
are usually authorized to pass ordinances regulating 
markets, and in the exercise of such authority they 
may exact licenses, but authority to regulate markets 
will not authorize the passage of an ordinance to pro¬ 
hibit every farmer, gardener or person producing the 
necessities of life, from selling the same in the streets 
or from house to house without paying an annual 
license fee. So held by the Minnesota, New Jersey, 
Ohio and New York Supreme Courts. The necessity 
of a public market is very apparent. There is nothing 
which more imperatively requires the constant super¬ 
vision of some authority which can regulate and con¬ 
trol it. Such authority is seldom vested in individ¬ 
uals. It can best be placed in the hands 
of corporate officers who represent the 
people immediately interested. A muni¬ 
cipal corporation, without a public mar¬ 
ket subject to the regulation of its own 
local authorities, would be an anomaly 
which at present has no existence among 
us. The State recognizes that a city, 
large or small, should be permitted to 
control in its own way all those things 
which concern nobody but themselves. 
The daily supply of food to the people 
of a city is emphatically their own affair. 
It is true that the persons who bring 
provisions to the market have also a 
sort of interest in it, but not such an 
interest as entitles them to a voice in 
its regulation. It is the common law of 
the land that cities have power to enact 
ordinances to promote the general wel¬ 
fare, and to preserve the peace and 
health of a city by fixing a time and 
place of holding public markets for the 
sale of food products, but while this rule 
is universally submitted to by the resi¬ 
dents of American cities, the laws of a 
market are not the laws of the street. 
In Pennsylvania the public laws au¬ 
thorize the cities to require licenses of 
those who sell from house to house, but 
declares that such ordinances shall not 
apply to persons residing in the country 
selling their own farm products on the 
street. Such an exemption was upheld by the supreme 
court (see Borough v. Geer, 117 Pa. St. 207). A farm¬ 
er is neither a hawker nor a peddler. As a rule he 
has a regular line of customers and stated days to sup¬ 
ply them. In Delaware a city ordinance prohibited 
the sale of mutton on the city streets by a farmer ex¬ 
ercising “the business of farming for the purpose of 
producing or preparing mutton for sale or market.” 
But this ordinance was held not to apply to a farmer 
selling mutton produced on his farm, unless he was 
at the time exercising the business of farming exclu¬ 
sively for that purpose. (See Homewood v. Willing- 
ton, 5 Del. 123.) In Georgia a city authorized to tax 
all persons selling products whether from stalls, shops 
or peddling, exempted the farmer who sold from house 
to house tne products of his farm and the supreme 
court held the exemption valid. (See Davis v. Macon, 
64 Ga. 128.) 
EXTENT OF DELEGATED POWER.—The char¬ 
acter and extent of the power thus delegated to cities 
depends upon the wording and construction of the 
charters and laws conferring it upon them. .It being 
the calling and not the property which is taxed, autho¬ 
rity to regulate and license a business or trade confers 
no power to impose a tax upon it, either for the pur¬ 
pose of raising a revenue or otherwise, and power to 
enact such ordinance as shall be deemed expedient for 
the good government of the city does not give the right 
to require a license from farmers. b. d. f. 
