Arizona republican., 1922-05-07

objection to this method is that it is
somewhat difficult to store the head
grain sorghum without loss from
mice or from mould. Where the poul-
try keeper can obtain his years sup
ply Of grain sorghum reasonable at
harvest time and can provide suit
able storage it is without DOUBT the
most economical of all feeds avail
able.
A source of considerable loss to
poultrymen is that from the Har-
yester ants that are SO much of a
pest in the valley. Where grain Is
fed sparingly so that it is all cleaned
up in a few minutes, the loss from
this source win be- comparatively
light but where it is left lying on the
ground for any length of time one
observing is quite likely to see a line
Of very Industrious ants carrying
away a grain at a time, but there are
thousands of ants and grain apiece
counts up, especially during the en-
tire summer when they are especially
active. A few cents worth of London
Purple scattered around the openings
of the nests of the ants will soon put
an end to this loss, although it is
like doctoring for lice, something that
must be persistently followed up, for
there are always enough ants or lice
left for seed"
Loss From Birds
Another source of some loss is from
birds. and this is another reason for
feeding in deep litter at least partly
enclosed or an argument for feeding
only what the fowls will clean up in
a few minutes. The loss of chicken
feed from birds is greater than most
people realize. Mice will also take
their toll if given a chance. Cats and
traps are generally cheaper than
grain.
Methods of feeding mash vary on
almost every farm. The old-fash-
ioned way was to feed it wet, usually
as a morning feed, warm or hot in
winter and just a plain water mix in
summer. Time and science has not
improved much on this method so far
as results go. as the fowls that are
fed a crumbly, wet mash once daily
are usually giving good accounts of
themselves. The principal objection
to this plan or method is the extra
labor that is required. An item that
for the small flock is of little conse-
quence, but for the large flock in
wolves considerable expense. Another
reason for objection on the part of
some is the fact that if the wet mash
is not consumed at once it draws flies
and becomes sour and unfit for
chicken feed; possibly all right for
hogs, though there might be a ques-
tion of that. The writer is inclined
to believe that the principal advan-
tage of feeding a wet mash over
straight dry mash is that fowls are
induced to eat more, and the larger
of feed .(provided that it is
the right kind of feed), that the fowl
the more eggs may be ex-
pected. A hen must eat in order to
produce, and wet mash appears to
be just little more palatable than
the dry.
Dry Mash Hopper
For the commercial farm or where
for one reason or another it is not
to feed regularly. the dry
mash hopper is the system that
should be used. There are number
of makes of hoppers on the market,
and there are many styles of home
made hoppers. Some of both home
made and the "Store" kind are good,
and some are worth but little
A hopper that does not clog and
that the fowls cannot get the feed
out of except to eat it, and therefore
cannot waste it is ideal There seems
to be a considerable difference in
fowls in the matter of desire to waste |
feed. Possibly this is because of a |
desire to exercise, perhaps it is due |
to a lack of something that is lacking |
In their ration. At any rate it is not |
that in two pens of the |
same breed, fed the same kind of a |
mash in the same kind of hoppers it |
will be found that one pen will waste |
! considerable amount and the other |
will waste none at all.
Generally, each poultryman will use
some device that will have a tendency /
% prevent waste. 1t is a matter that |
Usually resuires some observation and |
some study A good many poultry
keepers of the valley prefer to set
heir dry mash hoppers I'm a little off