Hopkinsville Kentuckian. [volume] (Hopkinsville, Ky.) 1889-1918, 1902-09-05
The Confinement Plan.

NCNluCull ohPSA ipi HhN Ao'N : ~
en- the subject much study aud have
made many careful experiments tC
determine which was the best sys
tenn for me to follow, aud always
with a view to keeping the stock II
the best possible health aud vigor
also to get the greatest profit from
their eggs.
had for years several poultry
houses constructed with openings
on one side, leading into yards,
and similar openings ov the oppo-
site side leading into free range
over orchard, pasture and stubble
fields of many acres, and as I al
ways kept large number of fowls
Twas able to carry on my expert
ment with birds of equal age and
condition. In this particular case
allowed one pen of fowls from
each house to have free range,
while the other pen in the same
house was confined TO the yards.
In one house l had one. year-olds,
in another two.year-olds, and as
each house was divided Into two
pens, this experiment was easily
conducted Igave the same care
and attention to each pen of fowls
and continued this portion of the
experiment over a period of three
months. then reversed the con-
ditions during the same length of
time, combining the fowls that had
been on the free range, and giving
those which had been confined the
liberty'o f the orchard, pasture and |
stubble fields.
Upon allowing the freedom of the
range TO the hens that had been
confined in the yards there were
two things readily noticed. One
was that they would eat less of the
food supplied them by the attend
ant; the other was that they fell off
considerably in egg production,
and while am sorry to say that l
did not keep exact figures as to the
saving in food or to the loss 10 egg
production, may state that the
loss in eggs more than balanced |
the saving of food. In fact the to-
tai loss attributed to the free range
plan, averaged for the whole peri
cd Of the experiment, amounted to-
"a little over twenty-seVen per cent.
OF the net profit derived from the
fowls that were confined.
The result was surprising to me,
as / rather expected that the fall
ing off in eggs would be so slight
that the saving in food would more
than counterbalauce it, to satisfy
myself, l continued the experiment
the following season, but with an
entirely different lot of fowls. The
result was almost identical with
that given by the first experiment.
Many people have told me they
did not believe 1t possible to keep
hens confined and at the same time
get as good results as might be
obtained from fowls having free
range where they could help them
selves to everything they needed.
Opposing this contention it is my
opinion that by giving the matter
proper consideration we can sup.
ply fowls with better egg prOduc-
ing material (food) than they can
Cor willy secure for themselves
when allowed free range. The only
way could account Tor the falling
off in egg production of the fowls
having free range was by noting
the fact that to a great extent they |
rejected the food that l supplied
them and satisfied their appetites
by picking up various food materi-
ais that did not contain the ele-
ments of egg production to such a
degree as would enable them to
keep up their full egg yield.
Now while am a strong advo,
cate Of the yard plan for mature
laying Leghorns, l wish it distinct
ly understood that l prefer free
range for young growing stock,
first, last and all the time, right
from the brooder until they 60 into
winter quarters. In the matter iof
yards for the old stock, l wish none
of the 7x9 foul odor affairs so often
found, and usually made small to
economic fencing rather than from
lack OF land. Lay the yard out
large on we'll sodded land, allowing
not less than one hundred square
feet to each bird double that