Читать книгу Poultry - Hugh Piper - Страница 14

Table of Contents

The scarcity of poultry in this country partly arises from all gallinaceous birds requiring warmth and dryness to keep them in perfect health, while the climate of Great Britain is naturally moist and cold.

"The warmest and driest soils," says Mowbray, "are the best adapted to the breeding and rearing of gallinaceous fowls, more particularly chickens. A wet soil is the worst, since, however ill affected fowls are by cold, they endure it better than moisture. Land proper for sheep is generally also adapted to the successful keeping of poultry and rabbits."

But poultry may be reared and kept successfully even on bad soils with good drainage and attention. The "Henwife" says: "I do not consider any one soil necessary for success in rearing poultry. Some think a chalk soil essential for Dorkings, but I have proved the fallacy of this opinion by bringing up, during three years, many hundreds of these soi disant delicate birds on the strong blue clay of the Carse of Gowrie, doubtless thoroughly drained, that system being well understood and universally practised by the farmers of the district. A coating of gravel and sand once a year is all that is requisite to secure the necessary dryness in the runs." The best soil for a poultry-yard is gravel, or sand resting on chalk or gravel. When the soil is clayey, or damp from any other cause, it should be thoroughly drained, and the whole or a good portion of the ground should be raised by the addition of twelve inches of chalk, or bricklayer's rubbish, over which should be spread a few inches of sand. Cramp, roup, and some other diseases, more frequently arise from stagnant wet in the soil than from any other cause.

The yard should be sheltered from the north and east winds, and where this is effected by the position of a shrubbery or plantation in which the fowls may be allowed to run, it will afford the advantage of protection, not only from wind and cold, but also shelter from the rain and the burning sun. It also furnishes harbourage for insects, which will find them both food and exercise in picking up. Indeed, for all these purposes a few bushes may be advantageously planted in or adjoining any poultry-yard. When a tree can be enclosed in a run, it forms an agreeable object for the eye, and affords shelter to the fowls.

A covered run or shed for shelter in wet or hot weather is a great advantage, especially if chickens are reared. It may be constructed with a few rough poles supporting a roof of patent felt, thatch, or rough board, plain or painted for preservation, and may be made of any length and width, from four feet upwards, and of any height from four feet at the back and three feet in the front, to eight feet at the back and six feet in the front. The shed should, if possible, adjoin the fowl-house. It should be wholly or partly enclosed with wire-work, which should be boarded for a foot from the ground to keep out the wet and snow, and to keep in small chickens. The roof should project a foot beyond the uprights which support it, in order to throw the rain well off, and have a gutter-shoot to carry it away and prevent it from being blown in upon the enclosed space. The floor should be a little higher than the level of the yard, both in order to keep it dry and the easier to keep it clean; and it should be higher at the back than in the front, which will keep it drained if any wet should be blown in or water upset. If preferred, moveable netting may be used, so that the fowls can be allowed their liberty in fine weather, and be confined in wet weather. But the boarding must be retained to keep out the wet. The ground may be left in its natural state for the fowls to scratch in, in which case the surface should be dug up from time to time and replaced with fresh earth pressed down moderately hard. If the house is large and has a good window, a shed is not absolutely necessary, especially for a few fowls only, but it is a valuable addition, and is also very useful to shelter the coops of the mother hens and their young birds in wet, windy, or hot weather.

By daily attention to cleanliness, a few fowls may be kept in such a covered shed, without having any open run, by employing a thick layer of dry pulverised earth as a deodoriser, which is to be turned over with a rake every day, and replaced with fresh dry pulverised earth once a week. The dry earth entirely absorbs all odour. In a run of this kind, six square feet should be allowed to each fowl kept, for a smaller surface of the dry earth becomes moist and will then no longer deodorise the dung. Sifted ashes spread an inch deep over the floor of the whole shed will be a good substitute if the dry earth cannot be had. They should be raked over every other morning, and renewed at least every fortnight, or oftener if possible. The ground should be dug and turned over whenever it looks sodden, or gives out any offensive smell; and three or four times a year the polluted soil below the layer, that is, the earth to the depth of three or four inches, should be removed and replaced with fresh earth, gravel, chalk, or ashes.[2] The shed must be so contrived that the sun can shine upon the fowls during some part of the day, or they will not continue in health for any length of time, and it is almost impossible to rear healthy chickens without its light and warmth; and it will be a great improvement if part of the run is open. Another shed will be required if chickens are to be reared.

Fowls that are kept in small spaces or under covered runs will require a different diet to those that are allowed to roam in fields and pick up insects, grass, &c., and must be provided with green food, animal food in place of insects, and be well supplied with mortar rubbish and gravel.

The height of the wall, paling, or fencing that surrounds the yard, and of the partitions, if the yard is divided into compartments for the purpose of keeping two or more breeds separate and pure, must be according to the nature of the breed. Three feet in height will be sufficient to retain Cochins and Brahmas; six feet will be required for moderate-sized fowls; and eight or nine feet will be necessary to confine the Game, Hamburg, and Bantam breeds. Galvanised iron wire-netting is the best material, as it does not rust, and will not need painting for a long time. It is made of various degrees of strength, and in different forms, and may be had with meshes varying from three-fourths of an inch to two inches or more; with very small meshes at the lower part only, to keep out rats and to keep in chickens; with spikes upon the top, or with scoloped wire-work, which gives it a neat and finished appearance; with doors, and with iron standards terminating in double spikes to fix in the ground, by which wooden posts are divided, while it can be easily fixed and removed. The meshes should not be more than two inches wide, and if the meshes of the lower part are not very small, it should be boarded to about two feet six inches from the ground, in order to keep out rats, keep in chickens, and to prevent the cocks fighting through the wire, which fighting is more dangerous than in the open, for the birds are very liable to injure themselves in the meshes, and, Dorkings especially, to tear their combs and toes in them. If iron standards are not attached to the netting, it should be stretched to stout posts, well fixed in the ground, eight feet apart, and fastened by galvanised iron staples. A rail at the top gives a neater appearance, but induces the fowls to perch upon it, which may tempt them to fly over.

Where it is not convenient to fix a fence sufficiently high, or when a hen just out with her brood has to be kept in, a fowl may be prevented from flying over fences by stripping off the vanes or side shoots from the first-flight feathers of one wing, usually ten in number, which will effectually prevent the bird from flying, and will not be unsightly, as the primary quills are always tucked under the others when not used for flying. This method answers much better than clipping the quills of each wing, as the cut points are liable to inflict injuries and cause irritation in moulting.

The openness of the feathers of fowls which do not throw off the water well, like those of most birds, enables them to cleanse themselves easier from insects and dirt, by dusting their feathers, and then shaking off the dirt and these minute pests with the dust. For this purpose one or more ample heaps of sifted ashes, or very dry sand or earth, for them to roll in, must be placed in the sun, and, if possible, under shelter, so as to be warm and perfectly dry. Wood ashes are the best. This dust-heap is as necessary to fowls as water for washing is to human beings. It cleanses their feathers and skin from vermin and impurities, promotes the cuticular or skin excretion, and is materially instrumental in preserving their health. If they should be much troubled with insects, mix in the heap plenty of wood ashes and a little flour of sulphur.

A good supply of old mortar-rubbish, or similar substance, must be kept under the shed, or in a dry place, to provide material for the eggshells, or the hens will be liable to lay soft-shelled eggs. Burnt oyster-shells are an excellent substitute for common lime, and should be prepared for use by being heated red-hot, and when cold broken into small pieces with the fingers, but not powdered. Some give chopped or ground bones, or a lump of chalky marl. Eggshells roughly crushed are also good, and are greedily devoured by the hens.

A good supply of gravel is also essential, the small stones which the fowls swallow being necessary to enable them to digest their hard food. Fowls swallow all grain whole, their bills not being adapted for crushing it like the teeth of the rabbit or the horse, and it is prepared for digestion by the action of a strong and muscular gizzard, lined with a tough leathery membrane, which forms a remarkable peculiarity in the internal structure of fowls and turkeys. "By the action," says Mr. W. H. L. Martin, "of the two thick muscular sides of this gizzard on each other, the seeds and grains swallowed (and previously macerated in the crop, and there softened by a peculiar secretion oozing from glandular pores) are ground up, or triturated in order that their due digestion may take place. It is a remarkable fact that these birds are in the habit of swallowing small pebbles, bits of gravel, and similar substances, which it would seem are essential to their health. The definite use of these substances, which are certainly ground down by the mill-like action of the gizzard, has been a matter of difference among various physiologists, and many experiments, with a view to elucidate the subject, have been undertaken. It was sufficiently proved by Spallanzani that the digestive fluid was incapable of dissolving grains of barley, &c., in their unbruised state; and this he ascertained by filling small hollow and perforated balls and tubes of metal or glass with grain, and causing them to be swallowed by turkeys and other fowls; when examined, after twenty-four and forty-eight hours, the grains were found to be unaffected by the gastric fluid; but when he filled similar balls and tubes with bruised grains, and caused them to be swallowed, he found, after a lapse of the same number of hours, that they were more or less dissolved by the action of the gastric juice. In other experiments, he found that metallic tubes introduced into the gizzard of common fowls and turkeys, were bruised, crushed, and distorted, and even that sharp-cutting instruments were broken up into blunt fragments without having produced the slightest injury to the gizzard. But these experiments go rather to prove the extraordinary force and grinding powers of the gizzard, than to throw light upon the positive use of the pebbles swallowed; which, after all, Spallanzani thought were swallowed without any definite object, but from mere stupidity. Blumenbach and Dr. Bostock aver that fowls, however well supplied with food, grow lean without them, and to this we can bear our own testimony. Yet the question, what is their precise effect? remains to be answered. Boerhave thought it probable that they might act as absorbents to superabundant acid; others have regarded them as irritants or stimulants to digestion; and Borelli supposed that they might really contribute some degree of nutriment."

Sir Everard Home, in his "Comparative Anatomy," says: "When the external form of this organ is first attentively examined, viewing that side which is anterior in the living bird, and on which the two bellies of the muscle and middle are more distinct, there being no other part to obstruct the view, the belly of the muscle on the left side is seen to be larger than on the right. This appears, on reflection, to be of great advantage in producing the necessary motion; for if the two muscles were of equal strength, they must keep a greater degree of exertion than is necessary; while, in the present case, the principal effect is produced by that of the left side, and a smaller force is used by that on the right to bring the parts back again. The two bellies of the muscle, by their alternate action, produce two effects—the one a constant friction on the contents of the cavity; the other, a pressure on them. This last arises from a swelling of the muscle inwards, which readily explains all the instances which have been given by Spallanzani and others, of the force of the gizzard upon substances introduced into it—a force which is found by their experiments always to act in an oblique direction. The internal cavity, when opened in this distended state, is found to be of an oval form, the long diameter being in the line of the body; its capacity nearly equal to the size of a pullet's egg; and on the sides there are ridges in their horny coat (lining membrane) in the long direction of the oval. When the horny coat is examined in its internal structure, the fibres of which it is formed are not found in a direction perpendicular to the ligamentous substance behind it; but in the upper portion of the cavity it is obliquely upwards. From this form of cavity it is evident that no part of the sides is ever intended to be brought in contact, and that the food is triturated by being mixed with hard bodies, and acted on by the powerful muscles which form the gizzard."

The experiments of Spallanzani show that the muscular action of the gizzard is equally powerful whether the small stones are present or not; and that they are not at all necessary to the trituration of the firmest food, or the hardest foreign substances; but it is also quite clear that when these small stones are put in motion by the muscles of the gizzard they assist in crushing the grain, and at the same time prevent it from consolidating into a thick, heavy, compacted mass, which would take a far longer time in undergoing the digestive process than when separated and intermingled with the pebbles.

This was the opinion of the great physiologist, John Hunter, who, in his treatise "On the Animal Economy," after noticing the grinding powers of the gizzard, says, in reference to the pebbles swallowed, "We are not, however, to conclude that stones are entirely useless; for if we compare the strength of the muscles of the jaws of animals which masticate their food with those of birds who do not, we shall say that the parts are well calculated for the purpose of mastication; yet we are not thence to infer that the teeth in such jaws are useless, even although we have proof that the gums do the business when the teeth are gone. If pebbles are of use, which we may reasonably conclude they are, birds have an advantage over animals having teeth, so far as pebbles are always to be found, while the teeth are not renewed. If we constantly find in an organ substances which can only be subservient to the functions of that organ, should we deny their use, although the part can do its office without them? The stones assist in grinding down the grain, and, by separating its parts, allow the gastric juice to come more readily in contact with it."

When a paddock is used as a run for a large number of poultry, it should be enclosed either by a wall or paling, but not by a hedge, as the fowls can get through it, and will also lay their eggs under the hedge. The paddock should be well drained, and it will be a great advantage if it contains a pond, or has a stream of water running through or by it. Mowbray advises that the grass run should be sown "with common trefoil or wild clover, with a mixture of burnet, spurry, or storgrass," which last two kinds "are particularly salubrious to poultry." If the grass is well rooted before the fowls are allowed to run on it, they may range there for several hours daily, according to its extent and their number, but it should be renewed in the spring by sowing where it has become bare or thin. A dry common, or pasture fields, in which they may freely wander and pick up grubs, insects, ants' eggs, worms, and leaves of plants, is a great advantage, and they may be accustomed to return from it at a call. Where there is a cropped field, orchard, or garden, in which fowls may roam at certain seasons, when the crops are safe from injury, each brood should be allowed to wander in it separately for a few hours daily, or on different days, as may be most convenient. "A garden dung-heap," says Mr. Baily, "overgrown with artichokes, mallows, &c., is an excellent covert for chickens, especially in hot weather. They find shelter and meet with many insects there." When horse-dung is procured for the garden, or supplied from your stables, some should be placed in a small trench, and frequently renewed, in which the fowls will amuse themselves, particularly in winter, by scraping for corn and worms. When fowls have not the advantage of a grass run they should be indulged with a square or two of fresh turf, as often as it can be obtained, on which they will feed and amuse themselves. It should be heavy enough to enable them to tear off the grass, without being obliged to drag the turf about with them.