POULTRY COLUMN.

Grey River Argus, 26 February 1927, Page 4 (Supplement)

POULTRY COLUMN.

Does Dry Mash Spread Infection? We have here an article by Mr C. I House, editor of “Poultry World,' who advances new food for thought on rhe matter of dry-mash feeding aim which may be interesting to those eon corned with the relative merits of dry mash and wet mash feeding. Opinions as to the relative merits ol dry and wet mash feeding we Know are divided (states the writer). In tin past great controversy has raged rounu the economical aspect of dry mash feeding, and the chief argument in its favour has been that it reduces working costs, because the outgo for labour is so much less. This is true. But is outgo the only point to be considered? To arrive at a just solution of the value or otherwise of dry mash feeding, w< must not overlook income. It is generally agreed that numerical ly the return in eggs from dry mash feeding is not equal to that from wet mash feeding. Breeders arc not so generally agreed upon another point. There are those who maintain that the weight of eggs from wet mash feeding is considerably greater than that from dry mash. If this is so, then it looks as though the old-fashioned wet mash has solid advantage over dry mash, especially for those who only keep fowls for the egg supply of the family. It must also not be forgotten that the increased number and size of eggs is a factor when the cash returns are made up on a commercial egg farm. There is an aspect of this dry versus wet feeding which has not been very fully considered. A few years since five shillings was a reasonable and general price for sittings of eggs from utility stock. To-day w.e have plenty of eggs from utility stock selling at from three to five guineas a setting. With this enhanced value can it now be* maintained that the sa\|ng of labour still enables the dry mash feeders to -equal or excel the economical Jesuits

achieved by the wet mash feeders. Eggs at fivepence each and eggs at five shillings, ten shillings, and even fifteen shillings each, are a very different proposition. Looking at the matter as a business proposition, it seems that for the commercial egg farm dry mash is rhe most economical, but when it comes to the production of eggs from highclass pedigree stock, wet mash has a decided. advantage. We were discussing this matter of feeding recently with one of our leading poultry farmers, and he rather startled us by saying In* had finished witn «Iry mash feeding. Not because of the ec > Domical question, but because—“ There is death in the hopper.’’ 11? contend ed that dry mash feeding spreads disease. and gave us a few instances or epidemics with dry mash feeding that were most alarming. If his conclusions are correct, ther<‘ is danger in dry mash feeding. His contention was that disease was spread by the birds ail feeding from the same trough. We could not but agree, but we countered his argument by asking: ‘‘What about the water trough?” Apart from thb; question of disease piopagation, which probably is more apparent than real, ; we do think there is room for consideration of the econo mical side of the matter as applied to high-class pedigree stdek. What have our readers to say about this? One very striking fact is that few. very few, of our Fancy men arc dry mash feeders. Why? Starting Without Capital.

Mr E. A. Taylor, well-known as the originator of the Utility White Runner Duck, founder of the Utility Duck Club, and first secretary and one of the founders of the Australorp Club, writing in the “Scottish Poultry News,’’ states that we all have our own ideas of the best possible way to start poultry keeping with £5OO or £lOOO capital and .yet the only advice one <?an find is how to start with capital. “What 1 will endeavour to show is how co start without capital,” he proceeds: “The old axiom that ‘a fool and his money will soon part’ holds good in poultry keeping rather more than in anything else. It is folly to . invest large sums of capital in so risky a proposition without an aptitude ; for the work and ample experience. “The mere fact that a person is fond of animals and an outdoor life (roes not guarantee success at egg production. It reminds me of the old lady wnojf sent her son to learn the butchering business, naively adding, ‘he always was fond of animals.’ The whole human race is fond of an open air life (except when it rains), but I like to sec the p'ae.ticaT sort of person who does red

consider his own comforts until lih live stock has been fed and made com fortable. Such a one is more likely re succeed than the other sort.

“To start poultry keeping without capital means that y z »u have simply got to work to earn your own Jiving. and to save enough to buy the nmt'uial for appliances and stock. It does not matter whether you propose to k<*cp or ducks, on a large or small scale; you have got to work ami save money 1 In the meantime find what you icquire in the way of timber, wire netting, etc., and buy them cheaply. A thing well bought is half sold, but don’t ma.k(e this mistake of purchasing poor appliances and stock because they are low }l»riced. ’“Always aim to get the best af= ieisonably as you can, then buy a broody hen at her value as a table birdJ Purchase a setting of eggs from a red in bio person, whom you know has a I good strain. Choose a breed chat possesses -dual properties, such as laying; and table —R.I. Reds, Wyandottes, or AusItralorps—but don’t keep Whites m I close confinement. White fowls; soon 'loose that lovely colour and look dirty, and theu you will lose interest', and I then you will lose interest, and! once that occurs, loss soon follows. ' “One of the most profitable investments you can make is to buy al few good books upon the subject any’l follow their advice, using your own (common sense into the bargain. Do ovci stock your land, and if you only invest (half your available capital in ( stock and appliances, leaving the otller hall for rearing expenses and unforsc'en outlays, you cannot go far wrong*;.