POULTRY FOR EVERYBODY.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10293, 22 July 1911, Page 3

POULTRY FOR EVERYBODY.

(Bv "Cock-o'-the-Xcr:

Ik "ore going back to oar . ..u .;■« or feeding, and as the breeding season is now on, I wish to say that I do not propose to break this scries of articles, but any reader cf tho Age who wishes for any par'.irui. r information in reepect to hatchir;.-; or rearing .may have same at c iuu on application to. ''Cock-o'-tho-North" at this office, and if reply ir. wanted by post a stamp to be enclosed for reply. IV ow, lot us take No. \ method of feeding as outlined in the issue of June 24th of this paper. The first question is, "Has it any good poinits ?" Certainly. It is a good system if properly carried out for licavy ogg production. It enables the worker or suburbanite who only keeps half a dozen .birds (or a dozen.;) to use up his talble .scraps and J ..ln:r> considerably cheapen tho production of the eggs at p?r dozen. Well, has it any bad points, and, if so, do the bad points outweigh the good?. Jos. to botli. In what way? Why, as follows: Waste of time, unnecessary labour, and waste of food. Let us take them seriatim. Wasto of time: Take the case of a man with say 500 birds. Now, we will suppose that it takes this man< say 2J-" hours daily to measure but, mix and feed the wet mash to his (birds nice and warm, as some persons are so fond: of putting it. This means that the person in question has taken 912 hours in feeding this- mash in the ! course of a year. If he values Ms time at l<s per hour, the mash alone for a year for 500 birds has cost him in labour the sum of £45 12s 6d, or nearly 2s per ibird. Now, what has ; he given to his [birds (besides the bran, pollard, animal food etc., which he feeds to his .birds for this sum of money? Why, water, pure water, and water onlyl .Oh, this is simply f nonsense! I fancy I hear some wet masher say. Why, I boil up livers or meat, and I mix my mash with the rich soup from- this. Just so; hut may I ask does he obtain the rich } soup from the He adds to the ration or from the meat or livers he boils in. the water? If from the latter, would .not the birds get the same " amount of nourishment from the same meat f®d raw, amd is riot the raw meat just as healthy and digestible for the. .birds as the cooked meat? Certainly. Then what is the. object of wasting money in a boiler, /and (daily) more money < in i fuel and .still more in time; because the 2% hpurs allowed above does not include the boiling, etc., of meat. "Ah, yes," says another wet masher, "but I mix my mash with milk which is a .splendid egg former." Granted; but would it form less eggs if the 'milk were given to the fowls to drink at one quarter the cost in tiihe? "Oh, that's all right," isays another, "but I believe in giving ,my .birds something. , they will relish, and, my word, they do like the wetfc mash!"

I • Did you ever observe how the I "swiper" relishes the beer or whis%y and to what lengths he will, go in dtefianpe of the law, and fines and even imprisonment, to get it; how he smacks his., lips over it, and lingets over it to get the ifull taste of it? ' Hlanre you ever observed how the opium, morphine, methylated spirits, chJorodyae, and, .arsenic slaves will fairly revel in the enjoyment of these • things ? I 'speak from personal i knowledge of the latter, and some ' twenty years ago I was the slave of j this habit, and would go to any i lengths to obtain it.

The slaves of these various poison® relish them and enjoy them; but does it follow that it is good for them, or J that the after effect® are good ? I (think not. j So -with the wet mash. Nattire placed in iall animals certain acids to % the dige«%nL.,of the various ; foods fed to various.- "species of animals, TheSe are known by the name ■o.t gastrin jmciea, and their office b to "thoroughly moisten the food mo?tthe process of ma&tioa< : oh and thus to, prepare it for digestion. If this: footfeis' Wetted' before beitLg ftd to the animal it'prevents, the food ibeinig properly moistened with juice® in exact propontdon to the amount of moisture supplied, ana thilis not only impair® fh* digestion but helps to <ivertax .the Vi'gest't e organs and. this tells' in time net only on the animal itself, buit on its [ progeny*- ' ■>

"Does it do this?" some one will say. Well, the best illustration I can give you is as follows: Tate three pieces of dry bread and three of.'WAter; .saucer® oh a table with the water in them; now .take one piece of the bread and partly'moi&teii it, and 'another and thoroughly. wet it; : After doing, this "put thei.partly moistened piece of ibread' i® oheij.teaucer > of 4 :water, the wet piece in: another, jum! the dry piece in. (the third. After five , minutes remove them and. what is the result? Why, the saucer in which the dry bread was put will ibe empty. The one in which the partly--1 moifftfaned piece wais put in will be partly empty, while that 1 in which the very wet piece of bread was put will still contain as much (or nearly) water as .before the bread was put in. Why? [Because the bread was not capable, of absorbing any more water.

Now, the same tiling exactly applies 'with, the food, and the result is thait (where the food is moistened before being fed, 'a portion of it 1 is only imperfectly digested, and is thrown out with the excrement, thereby occasioning waste of food,. , •'Do you /see a horse of. cow, if eating dry hay or' 'bran 1 , or ofats or chaff, go and driiik with each mouthful he takeß? Not much. It- either drinks 'before or after, hut never 'WMltf ©.ating.l; (T© jbe continued.)