Common-sense poultry doctor

Front matter

Historic, archived document

Do not assume content reflects current scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.

LIBRARY

CHAPTER XVI. Molting

Appendix ------

THE

COMMON-SENSE

F BOOKS and booklets on poultry diseases there are in the

\_y English language possibly a score — not including pamphlets or circulars distributed to advertise remedies. Besides, nearly every general work on poultry contains a chapter on poultry diseases.

Of works on poultry diseases a goodly proportion are by men who may be considered specialists, professionals. They are doctors of veterinary surgery, or regular medical practitioners whose interest in poultry naturally led them into the investigation of poultry diseases.

Why, then, another book on poultry diseases, and by an author without medical education and training?

The conditions of poultry doctoring are peculiar. The ordinarv individual fowl is of such small value that a single examination or treatment by a medical practitioner would cost more than the fowl was worth. For this reason professional medical attendance on sick fowls is almost unknown. Occasionally, in case of an epidemic which completely baffles him, a poultryman calls in one

POULTRY DOCTOR.

Introductory and Personal.

o THE. COMMON-5LNSL POULTRY DOCTOR.

of the few qualified practitioners who respond to such calls when their regular duties permit. In some of the states the services of experts connected with the State Experiment Stations or Agricultural Colleges may be secured in such emergencies. As a rule; however, every poultryman has to be his own poultry doctor, and treat his fowls according to his judgment, aijded sometimes by such light as he can get from books or from oth^r poultrymen.

As a rule, the poultryman with no authority to consult, or in doubt after learning what he could from accessible^ sources of information, goes to the editor of a poultry paper for further advice, and, as a rule, the editor, if he can help the inquirer, is able to help him because of a little more experience with sick fowls, familiarity with the literature of the subject, and constant practice in deciphering from amateur descriptions the symptoms which enable him to identify the disease at least accurately enough to direct his correspondent where to look for information that will help him to a better knowledge of the case and its causes and the methods of treating it.

So it came about that engaging in editorial work on a poultry paper I had to renew the study of poultry diseases which, as a practical poultryman, I had discontinued years before, and considering them always from the non-professional point of view, from the standpoint of the practical poultryman, I appreciated, as a professional medical man probably would not, the difficulties encountered by the layman using some of the best works on poultry diseases. The work on diseases which I have myself found by tar the most valuable for reference became satisfactory only after constant use had made me familiar with its contents. Even this work, though far more exhaustive than any other, is not complete. It contains nothing or scant information on a number of matters that are frequently the subject of inquiry, and it treats some diseases in such a way that not many using the book would discover the connection between a case of the disease and the treatment of it here. The smaller books are quite generally not explicit enough. In nearly all works on diseases of poultry a knowledge of the name, or at least the general character of a disease, is the first requisite in a search for information about it. This is precisely the knowledge that most of those consulting a book on poultry diseases go

INTRODUCTORY AND PERSONAL. 7

to it for, and the books are therefore deficient in the very feature which would make them most helpful to poultrvmen using them most — that is, to beginners.

In this book I have tried to develop a method of diagnosis especially suited to those not familiar with the various poultry diseases. It is not the professional method, and I do not suppose that it would be of much use to a professional, but I trust the novice in the treatment of sick fowls will find it practical and helpful. It is^ approximately the method evolved by the peculiar conditions under which I have to advise about sick fowls, and though it has itsdefects and its limitations. I think that most of those not able to recognize and name diseases by their visible symptoms will find it more satisfactory than anything yet offered them.

This method of diagnosis, the more complete list of diseases treated, the strictly popular style of the work, and the attention given many minor details which the professional writers have too often assumed everyone knew, are the special features which seem to me to furnish the reasons for another book on poultry diseases. Its object is to supply a connection which seems to be too often missing between those who need and those who have knowledge of the subject; and it is on such a basis that a non-professional mayr with propriety, venture to treat the subject of poultry diseases.

For the matter of the book I have drawn freely on the standard writers on the subject, and, in general, have followed them in statements of symptoms, treatment, etc., but occasionally have supplied a fact from personal knowledge, and I presume that comparison would show here and there a variation from advices of* such authorities as to the advisability of treating, though, on the whole, those authorities agree with the body of experienced poultry keepers in regard to the general unprofitableness of doctoring.

JOHN H. ROBINSON.

Chapter 1

To Doctor or Not to Doctor — When to Doctor ami What to Doctor.

ISEASE in the poultry yard may be considered and treated

1 J on a very different basis from disease among human beings, or even among the larger domestic animals. In a general way the common diseases are the same, or similar in causes, symptoms, and treatment, though often differing in name; but in the case of a sick or injured animal, the owner may consider whether it will pay to restore the animal to health or sound condition, while, in the case of a human being, moral obligations and the natural affections impel these directly interested in the welfare of the patient to exhaust every means to preserve life, though prolonged life may mean misery to the sufferer, and care and expense to his family or friends. In the case of a sick or injured fowl the owner may consider the profit and loss aspects of the situation, but with this difference between the fowls and larger domestic animals : The value of the fowl is generally so small that the proportion of cases it does not pay to treat is very much increased, and it is only in exceptional instances that it pays to doctor sick fowls.

Some poultrymen take the extreme ground that it pays best never to doctor sick fowls at all, but to kill them at once, and so dispose of their carcasses that the health of the flock cannot be further menaced by the disease which affected them.

This position is too radical. I doubt whether anyone ever adhered to it strictly, except for a very short time. Those who claimed to do so, I have generally found killed only very sick fowls, though from their statements it would be inferred that they kept no

THE. ECONOMIC RULE. OF ACTION.

fowls not perfectly healthy. In practice they are less radical than in theory, and their practice agrees with that of most experienced and successful poultry keepers.

The general rule is : —

Give treatment ivken it can be applied to a flock conveniently and -with reasonable expectation of beneficial results, and treat individuals, if necessary, -when treatment is simple, easy, and needs to be administered but very feiv times.

This we may term the economic rule for treatment of sick fowls, the rule to apply when the first question to consider is the financial aspect of doctoring in any particular case.

If one wishes to treat sick fowls for the purpose of observing the course of a disease, its symptoms, effects of methods of treatment, etc., that is another matter, and one — it should be said — with which the poultryman who has to make his living from poultry, and finds his time pretty well occupied in making it, should have as little as possible to do. The practical investigation of diseases of poultry by poultrymen ends when it has gone as far as necessary to show how the disease in question can best be avoided ; and in the treatment of diseases that are brought to or develop in his yards a poultry keeper can generally get experience in that line as fast as he needs it, even if he limits his efforts to the treatment of cases he regards as well worth trying to save.

In deciding that point, the novice is apt to err against his own immediate interests, just as he does in deciding what fowls it is worth while to keep to sell for breeding purposes. In his early experiences in poultry keeping he reserves for sale many fowls of a grade and value he soon learns it does not pay to hold, and in the same period he regards as worth an effort to save many fowls which a few years later he will unhesitatingly kill rather than be bothered treating and risk the danger of spreading disease in his flock. In the case of sick fowls, however, there is a compensating feature. Though he doctors many fowls it does not pay to treat, he is learning much that is of practical use to him. He gets a practical training in the general management of fowls, learns the premonitory symptoms of the common diseases, gains a better appreciation of the reasons for various preventive measures about which many are too careless, and gets a better understanding of the limits of safety in the matters in which extraordinary risks are sometimes warranted.

On the whole, it may be said that the experience in treating sick fowls which the great majority of beginners acquire because they either are not convinced of the wisdom of the rule given above, or are much more lax in applying it than older poultry men, teaches them many things better and quicker than they would learn them any other way; and looking at the matter in this light, we cannot say that their doctoring is unprofitable — provided they limit it to cases they judge promising. In virulent diseases and difficult cases that would require skillful treatment and careful nursing, it is always better to kill the fowls that are seriously affected, and devote one's whole attention to preventive treatment for the rest of the flock.

A great many diseases are quite readily cured by very simple remedies, or even by the mere removal of the cause, and by appropriate diet when taken in their early stages, but very stubborn if neglected until they are well advanced and the recuperative powers of the fowl correspondingly weakened. Too often poultry keepers neglect treatment until the condition of the fowl becomes serious, though they have known from the first that the fowls needed some attention.

If one is going to treat sick fowls at all, he shouta make it a rule to isolate sick birds as soon as noticed, and put them where he is sure general conditions are good and favorable. Very often fowls are kept where conditions are not satisfactory, but as long as no disease develops among them, may be tolerated. While a well fowl may stand such conditions, they aggravate disease, and often make the treatment adopted partly or wholly ineffective. The first step, then, should be to place the sick fowls where all sanitary conditions are good, and where the faults of the permanent quarters are offset by especially good conditions in the same line. Thus, if the permanent quarters are not well exposed to the sun, see that sick fowls taken from them are given a bright sunny place. If the permanent quarters are damp, be sure that the sick fowls removed from them are put in a dry place. If the fowls are kept in small bare yards, put the sick fowls where they have grass run if

GOOD NURSING MOST IMPORTANT. 11 possible. I might go on and give quite a long list of suggestions in this line. These serve to illustrate the point, and by observing this point the owner of a sick fowl will often make the best possible beginning of treatment, even before he identifies the disease and is able to give the full specific treatment laid down in the books.

As a matter of fact, good hygienic conditions and good nursing count for much more in the treatment of curable diseases than medicines. Without them medical treatment rarely effects a cure ; with them many cures are made without medicine, or with medicines of no particular value in the case. It is quite common for poultrymen to mistake the character of a disease, give remedies according to their mistaken diagnosis, and because the fowl recovers, assume that the diagnosis was correct, and the treatment appropriate and effective, when the truth is that the fowl either would have recovered without treatment, or is restored to health by good nursing.

A great many diseases can only be identified by post mortem examination of fowls that die, or are killed for that purpose. A considerable proportion of these diseases will be positively identified only by expert examination, while cases that baffle the experts are by no means rare, for many cases are of irregular types, and a great deal remains to be done in the investigation of the diseases of poultry. These obscure cases the novice of course cannot give specific treatment, and unless one is quite sure he knows the general character of the disease, and the general line of treatment that should be followed, it is probably best to attempt no treatment whatever, merely putting the sick fowls in a comfortable place, supplying them with clean water and a light diet — if they will eat — and await developments. Otherwise the treatment given may aggravate the disease.

"Reading up" on diseases, in anticipation of possible cases or outbreaks in the flock is well as far as it goes. It makes one somewhat familiar with the nomenclature of the subject and with the most easily recognized symptoms. It is a good introduction to actual study and practice, but, with a case of sickness on hand, one never ougnt to rely on his recollection of what he has read in this way, but should compare the symptoms in the case with those

12 THL COMMON-SLN5L POULTRY DOCTOR.

given for the disease he thinks he has recognized. A great many undertake to doctor sick fowls on a diagnosis which considered but one or a few conspicuous symptoms, and go wrong, when, if they had consulted their authorities, they would have known they were wrong, even if they failed to discover what they needed to know to set them right.

Isolated or rare instances of disease or death which cannot be explained need give no particular uneasiness. Many of these are due to accidental causes, or to conditions peculiar to the fowls affected and not general in the flock, and investigation in the flock would lead to nothing, while investigation of the individual case, when possible, would reveal nothing pertinent to the rest of the flock. In general, therefore, it is as well to give those cases no furthei thought. But if such a case is shortly followed by another similar case the poultryman should begin to watch his fowls very closely, and to look the premises over to see if anything is wrong. Then if cases continue to come, and he is still at sea about them, he should try to get advice.

CHAPTER II. Indications of Health and General Symptoms of Disease

R. SALMON has aptly referred to a definition of disease as

| / "a life, the manifestations of which deviate more or less from the normal." Then to detect disease we must observe a deviation from the normal. To observe such deviation we must know what is normal. The normal condition in one's own flock may not be the general, healthy normal. Very frequently it is not. There are many flocks that, because of unsanitary conditions or poor feeding, usually show such general symptoms which are common to nearly all diseases, as dullness, roughness of plumage, etc., not perhaps in as marked degree as in a sick fowl, but still enough to make the usual appearance of the fowls so different from that of fowls in perfect health and condition, that the first symptoms of disease are less conspicuous, and may pass for a long time unnoticed. This explains why so many poultry keepers describe as having appeared suddenly, symptoms which, to more experienced eyes, would have been plain long before, but which they did not observe until they became too pronounced to be overlooked by anyone. In a flock of fowls in vigorous health and good condition, any variation from the normal is immediately conspicuous. In a flock that is a little off in condition and appearance all through, diseases may make a good deal of progress before their presence is suspected.

A healthy fowl in good condition has a confident carriage. In the smaller and more energetic breeds this manifests itself generally in alertness, energetic movements, and bustling activity. In the larger fowls general movements are more deliberate and dignified, but there is no lack of wide awakeness and business-like interest in life. In the medium sized breeds we get a mean between the activity of the light and the more serious attitude of the heavy breeds, but in them all the indications of soundness and good condition are easily recognized.

The eve should be bright and clear. The skin of the face and comb and wattles should be smooth, pliable, and a clear red in color, bright red in males after the age of puberty is passed, and the same bright red in the females when laying. In chickens and in hens not laying, the comb is not so highly colored, but still should show a healthy red. In some game fowls, and in a few rare breeds, the comb is normally very dark, but in all the commoner and popular breeds, the comb is a bright red, and — allowing for some lack of color in the combs of immature stock and hens that are not laying — any variation from a good red, (as a yellowish or purplish tinge), should be regarded with suspicion, and, having been noted, should be investigated.

The feathers, except during molting, should be smooth, quite glossy when new, but becoming duller with age until when quite dead, just before the molt, they soil quickly and are not easily cleaned. The ordinary wear on the plumage begins to show slightly almost immediately after the molt, and there is a progressive deterioration of the feathers, slow at first, very rapid just before the molt, but healthy feathers have a life and quality that is absent from the plumage of fowls in poor condition, and poor plumage means something going wrong.

The skin and scales of the shanks and feet should be smooth and clean looking. Any roughness, or a dry shriveled skin, means trouble, either local or as a feature of the general state of health. In yellow skinned fowls bad condition of feet is more noticeable than in others, but whatever the color of the feet, between those in good condition and those that fail even a little of good condition, the difference is very plain after having been once observed. When fowls are kept in dry places, especially on coal ashes or on alkali soils, the legs are apt to bleach badly when the skin under the feathers is a little affected. Under other conditions the condition of the skin of the feet generally indicates the condition of the skin of the body, and is a symptom not to be neglected.

GENERAL LACK OF CONDITION.

The habits of fowls also afford indications of their physical condition. The normal fowl is apt to be governed somewhat by its primitive instincts and natural tendencies, even when not impelled by necessity. Fowls that eat only what they get with little effort, and then remain inactive until near the next feeding time are not right or are not managed right. In such flocks digestive disorders are likely to be general. Not all — and possibly at a certain time none — of the fowls may have digestive trouble, but they have habits that develop such troubles, and therefore should be corrected.

Sometimes inactivity or reluctance to forage are due to sore feet, or a beak so injured or deformed that the fowl picks up small grains with difficulty. Hence a bird that mopes or sits around should be caught and examined to find out whether any trouble of this kind exists.

General lack of condition in a flock is frequently not suspected by a poultryman who sees closely little stock but his own, or who looks at it with too partial eyes. Again and again I have seen people in all seriousness call attention to the fine condition of their fowls when lack of good condition was evident all through it. As a rule, a poultry keeper whose fowls are subject to any bad condition, overcrowded, lack exercise, house ill ventilated, yards foul, houses damp, etc., needs to suspect that these have some effect on his fowls, and if his fowls seem all right to him, would do well to compare them with others that are kept under better conditions, and perhaps also compare notes with others. In all matters of this kind discussion sharpens the wits, and should make the judgment more accurate.

And it is of the utmost importance that judgment in such matters should be correct, for while in this book on diseases we must pass the subject, as incidental, with a brief mention, to know the signs of health, and those first variations from them which indicate the presence of conditions favorable to development of disease, is of far greater practical value to the working poultryman than to know all about all diseases. Within limits, and as long as health continues sound, we may, in practical poultry keeping, disregard or depart from some of the rules of safety. Our warrant for doing this is the fact that the rules may be violated much or many times without the appearance of the possible bad consequences. We take risks w hich are justifiable or otherwise, according to our ability to control the situation, and this, in many cases, (if not in all), depends upon being able to detect the early indications of unfavorable developments, and take steps to counteract them before they reach a serious stage.

Delicacy either in diet or susceptibility to weather changes is a condition which calls for the serious consideration of the poultry keeper who finds it in his flock. There are many flocks extremely susceptible to variations in the weather, in the conditions under which they are kept, and even unfavorably affected by slight changes of diet. The number of flocks of fowls, especially those kept in close quarters, that become dependent on the perfect working of the keeper's system is surprisingly large. Though there may be no disease in such flocks, vitality is low and constitution impaired, and the stock is often reduced by outbreaks of disease which would have had little effect on more robust fowls. Delicacy in a flock calls for a more robust method of treatment.

CHAPTER III. General Rules for the Prevention of Disease

HE first and most important requisite for the prevention of

X disease is good physical condition based on a good constitution and preserved by good housing, yarding, feeding, and care- The making of a good constitution may be said to begin with the selection of vigorous healthy breeding stock. This means not simply stock that appears to be in good condition at the breeding season, but stock that has never at any time been seriously out of condition. Over and over again in the experience of thousands of poultry keepers it has been shown that the offspring of fowls apparently cured of a disease are peculiarly subject to that disease, or to some kindred disease, and that such stock seems to succumb very easily to disease. It does not always happen so, but it happens so often, and the losses thus incurred are so serious, that old poultrymen are generally agreed that a fowl that has had a serious sickness is worse than useless as a breeder. Such a fowl, if possessed of special merit, might be used in a special mating, the object being to perpetuate his special points of excellence. And the offspring of such a mating, if given special care to prevent the disease the parent had, might escape it. Then by careful breeding and judicious handling tendency to the disease might be eliminated from the stock, and so the original excellence preserved free from the original weakness, and finally introduced into the entire flock. But it is only one bird in a thousand that is good enough to be worth this trouble, and no matter how good the bird, it is a mistake for a breeder to rely upon a fowl that has had a sickness likely to

THL COMMON-5LN5FL POULTRY DOCTOR.

affect his progeny. If he breeds from such birds, it should be as stated above, in special matings, his regular matings being of fowls that had always been healthy.

Above all, a breeder should avoid breeding from a flock all, or most of which had been sick, for from such breeding stock there is almost always a large proportion of weakly, stunted chicks that succumb easily to disease.

The next thing to observe for the preservation of health is the natural environment — the soil and atmospheric conditions.

On heavy or clayey soils, all filth diseases are much more troublesome than elsewhere. On loose sandy, well drained soils, the dangers of filth diseases are so greatly reduced that the poultry keeper, if so disposed, may safely reduce his efforts to maintain strict cleanliness, often to the point of neglect of cleanliness, without serious risk. On soils of intermediate character, maintenance of safe sanitary conditions varies in its requirements with the nature of the soil.

Atmospheric conditions are, as a rule, of less importance. Fowls become accustomed to a certain general atmospheric condition, or range of conditions, and endure without inconvenience conditions which, to unacclimated fowls, might be serious. The most important point to observe in regard to atmospheric conditions is with unacclimated fowls. Fowls that are new to a locality, especially if brought from a very different climate, are often injured by exposure to weather conditions which do not hurt acclimated fowls in the least. To avoid diseases that might develop in this way, keep such fowls from exposure to the full severity of weather extremes, whether heat, wet, wind, or cold.

The house problem, as it concerns health, may be made simple or difficult according to the system of housing adopted.

In an open house with fresh air always abundant, what are known as the temperature diseases are reduced to the minimum, though in such houses fowls lacking in vigor are perhaps more likely to contract such diseases as pneumonia, than in warmer houses.

In warm houses the health of the fowl depends very much upon the attention given to the ventilation, and not to constant ventilation through ventilators supposed to have certain desired effects, but to ventilation by adjustment of doors and windows to suit the

CLEANLINESS, DIET, EXERCISE.

daily as well as the irregular or seasonable changes of conditions. Occasional neglects of doors and windows of tight houses are fruitful causes of disease, while the general habit of keeping such houses shut tight much more than is necessary, makes the average vitality of fowls kept in them much lower than it should be.

The effect of cleanliness in the house on the health of the fowls is also influenced by the type of house used. If a house is to be closed tight and kept warm so that all gases and odors are retained in it for hours and the air laden with them, droppings should be removed daily. If the house is open so that odors and gases are carried off such frequent cleanings are not necessary.

The observations already made on soils apply in a general way to yards. In connection with the yards we have further to consider such disinfection and renovation of the soil as may be necessary, and the effects of neglect of these upon the general condition of the fowls occupying the premises. Yards used too long without renovation are often the unsuspected cause of disease, or, where no disease develops, of failure of the stock to thrive. Sanitary conditions must be preserved in the yard as well as in the house.

The diet of fowls and the method of feeding them are directly responsible for most of the digestive disorders. We cannot take that subject up in this connection, but the reader should understand that only by judicious and proper feeding can he avoid the common troubles of poultry that are most obscure in their symptoms and most difficult to deal with.

Methods of exercising fowls are generally intimately related to methods of feeding them. A system of feeding that discourages exercise is wrong except for chickens to be marketed early, or in fattening. Frequently a ration that is good and safe, if given to fowls that exercise freely, is a regular disease breeder for fowls that take little exercise. A most conspicuous illustration of this is found in the case of corn, which, fed under proper conditions, is a most satisfactory food, but when fed in disregard of appropriate conditions quickly puts fowls out of condition.