POULTRY FOR EVERYBODY.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10275, 30 June 1911, Page 6

POULTRY FOR EVERYBODY.

(By "Oock-o'-the-North.') P>efore entering upon the merits or demerits of any method of feeding, as mentioned last week, there are .two matters demanding attention at my hands, the one bearing on the subject, and the other on a different matter.

I will deal with, 'the latter first. I received some- few days ago an anonymous letter from some person in. the Wairarapa, who evidently was ashamed to sign his name, extolling me Ifor the stand I took upon the question of the "standard of excellence" for utility classes, and roundly abusing Mr F. Brown., the Government Poultry Instructor, with the •evident wish to gratify some petty spite. Now, INwiish this person, whoever he may be, to distinctly understand .that lie has not flattered me in any way hy thanking that I am of the same kidney as himself, which I would he very sorry to he. I certainly differ with Mr Brown on a few subjects in regard to poultry culture, and when occasion arises I ! do not hesitate for one moment to vindicate anything'l say or do, or have .said or done. But let (readers understand this at once : There is no single man in the Dominion poultry world to-day whom I respect more than Mr F. Brown, and I say without fear of contradiction that the Government did one of the wisest' things in-the interests of poultry culture throughout the Dominion that they could possibly have done when they placed, a man so keen, practical and courteous as the gentleman referred to in the position { he holds to-day. If anything should happen, to alter this, N it would he little short of a calamity so far as the poultry men and women of New Zealand are conecerned. I for one hold that he is the right man in the right place. The smallest backyarder commands, as much (or more) attention and care from him as the largest poultryman in existence. He is untiring in his efforts to .modernise and lift up the industry, and the earnest hope of "Oock-o'-the-North" is that hie will foe spared a great many years to fill the position to which (in my opinion) he is an honour. As for the differences of opinion existing between this gentleman and imyiself, one thing 'will remove them, and that is proof. To give this needs a little time, hut it is in a very fair way to being done now. The next item is the (result of what lias been folazoned forth in various papers .throughout Australasia as the ignominious failure of the "drymash" feeding test at HJawkesbury College, New South Wales. I wtill give the opinion of this result in the words of the New South Wales Government Poultry Expert, as published in the "Australian. Hen" of April 20th, 1911: "The ten pens of pullets running contra to ten pens «i the ninth competition were respectively from the same owners and of the .same varieties, strains, ages, and in every way similar birds, so this , constituted a fair test. The dry-feeding system was greatly boomed in America, and even by some in Australasia, as some entirely new system from which extraordinary results were obtainable." Them, further, he says: "This test was conclusively tried. It proved practically a fiasco." And finally, when saying that it is useful to the business man unable to be home in time to feed at night, he says: "This is about the only thing, which can be

said in its favour," The questions which are at issue, and which affect Wairarapa poul-* tryimen in common with, other Australasian ptoultrymen who have read the report, and who would probably be influenced thereby are (Ist) Was the dry mash test ever tested at Hawkeslbury College? (2nd) Was the test between whatever systems of feeding which were really tested a fair test? (3rd) Is the data collected as. the result of this test reliable, or of any practical use to poultrymen? (4th) Is Mr Thompson, even on the actual result of the test, and /taking the figures, as the result of] a fair test, justified in pronouncing the dry-feeding system, as tried ait Hawkesbury, a fiasco? Most emphatically "No!" to all of the above questions? Why? Well, I will do my humble best to show that the test was valueless as a test of either dry mash feeding or dry feeding. First, in regard to the system being greatly .boomed in America as some entirely new system. Would

ivir jinompson state m wnat reputable American poultry publication: he i lias ever seen the dry mash system, dry system, or Hopper, system, which are .three entirely separate and dis- , tinot systems of feeding poultry, described as "new" this side of fifteen ' years back? I worked among poultry 31 years ago in the United States, Canada, and Newfoundland, and each system was 'better then, even if they were not generally known, and at the present day the dry mash system, of feeding laying fowls is used by fully one-half of the poultrymen of the United States, and for the feeding of chicks it is almost universally used. Now tihe dry mash system of feeding consists, as stated last week, of leaving before the birds at all times in suitable hoppers a properly balanced mash, mixed dn the same way as a wet mash., with the same ingredients, with the one important difference that no liquid of any kind iis mixed with the mash, which is absolutely dry. The green- food, where fowls are confined,, is also kept at all times before the birds dn hoppers, while the grain is fed (generally) - at noon and night, hut always in deep litter. The dry feeding* is all grain, and all in deep litter with animal and green, food in suitable hoppers at all times before thre" birds.; while the hopper system consists of tfliie various grains and meals fed, being kept all in hoppers before the birds at all tames-. Now, the report says that four hoppers each of one gallon capacitywere in each pen containing wheat, maize, pollard and meat-meal, and bran, respectively, -from which, the birds could help themselves at their own sweet will and without exercise or exertion 'of- any kind. In faot, the 'worst form of poultryfeeding known for egg-production, viz., "The Hopper System," and because this hopper system- -did not produce, as • many eggs as the Wet mash system, the "dry mash sys\ tern" (totally different" was con-" damned. (To be continued.)