The call of the hen; or, The science of selecting and breeding poultry for egg-production
Witte PELVIC, BONG..... 2... 5% ss sath ws 250 eggs Phar PClVICIDOME ss 5 oc disse, 6) f= mia nies 235 eggs Wise PELVIC, DONG. a. ss oc ins HA des 220 eggs Bi aspelvic: DONE! 2. <2 a a4. ME ak 205 eggs MAC IVIGIDONE 43.0 een ps toes 190 eggs eae DelVIC,POMER bas. kot. Guide) des 175 eggs Dam PCIVIGDONEs. oe fc oss eee 160 eggs a amaC VIC DONE sscs0 3c «sa aoc J8 5S upelas 145 eggs OAC ONE ce 8 0) es ins aa be 130 eggs aPeNNie DONC ss piss ose oe we 115 eggs a ieae VIE DONC. a 22 es ed Os 100 eggs We DEIVACIDONE Joo. oi hs cos aes Oe 85 eggs Pegi pEIViC-WONGss (26 es eke SS 70 eggs F PEMEWWAG: DOME Nes. 2\s cos wats cous Sees 55 eggs CIVIC HIONE oy ore! gu sho eared cies 40 eggs PatMeeMelVIC WOME... .)05 . s+ + ss. din ede ace 25 eggs Ee ene VIC IONE. o's'ie = e-deen okies 10 eggs Eo eESMEIVAC, DONE. .).)-a.02- eo scv owl aysiss e's 0 eggs 62 THE CALL OF THE HEN. Our next hen may be a five-finger-abdomen hen, as in Fig. 16; she may be in good condition, as in Fig. 19, and her pelvic bones may be. 3/s-inch thick, as in Fig. 27. We would read her as five fingers abdomen; good condition, and */s-inch pelvic bones. Chart 5 would show us that she was a 175-egg type hen. The next hen may be a Give-fapemabanmen hen; condition good; pelvic bones 1 inch thick. She would read five fingers abdomen; good condition; l-inch pelvic bones. The chart would indicate that she was a 25-egg type hen. The next hen may be a six-finger-abdomen hen, as in Fig. 17; she may be in good condition, and her pelvic bones may be 1!/4 inches thick as in Fig. 31. I hear the reader say, ‘‘What breed of a hen has pelvic bones as thick as that? or do you mean that both of her pelvic bones are 1!/, inches thick, counting them both together?’ No; I mean that each one of her pelvic bones is 114 inches thick. Counting the bone, gristle, fat, and flesh (flank), both of the pelvic bones would be 244 inches thick. When we speak of pelvic bones being so thick, we always mean one of them. And as to breed, this hen is a Single Comb White Leghorn; she is the typical beef type. You will see by Chart 6 that she will lay practically nothing; and here I will explain this matter. CHART 6. Six-finger Abdomen. NERVOUS TEMPERAMENT. U/ie pelvic; bONe?, nisaee sae hae ee 280 eggs t/s PelvicibOners sna. ck ce Leen 265 eggs 87 16, DElviC. DONE Sine Sears. ee 250 eggs Ma pelvic bone. Aetcitae eae sees 235 eggs Bde. Pelvic: DONE... ane. fey pene 220 eggs SANGUINE TEMPERAMENT. 3/3 ApelVvic bone..o-1. eet one eee 205 eggs U/ ie PElWAC DONEGs; 2-0 k hs oo ree 190 eggs lie: «pelvic bone. [tia o. ¢2-5 See 175 eggs V/ierpelvic DONE.s= sj we eee 160 eggs b/s pelvic bole... a.<-43 an ees 145 eggs BILIOUS TEMPERAMENT. Whig pelvic .boness5 > oak ae 130 eggs Tig pelvie bones m= 4 eae o 115 eggs ag pelvic Dome. eek oe BStae 100 eggs t's -pelVic bone s.4h as ioe. Nee 85 eggs “(16 pelvic bones Ast eae Lee 70 eggs LYMPHATIC TEMPERAMENT. % Lin. pelvicibone cos ee ee 55 eggs tye Delwic bones 14, wee eee 40 eggs se pelvic bone... ta nee 25 eggs Lig PELVIC DONE. ta aie ee ee ee 10 eggs I*/4 pelvic bone... 3-year e e 0 eggs THE CALL OF THE HEN. 63 A man once brought me a two-and-a-half-year-old hen that he had trap-nested for two years, and asked me to tell him how many ‘eggs she had laid her first laying-year. I told him she had never laid an egg. Her abdomen was six fingers, she was in good condition, and her pelvic bones were 1!/, inches thick. He cautioned me to be careful, as he had always trap-nested his hens, and his record showed how many eggs they had laid. I replied, “If that is the case, her record shows that she has never laid an egg.”’ He said no more then, but brought me another hen, -asking me how many she would lay. I examined her for capacity. I found she was a six-finger-abdomen hen; her condition Was good; her pelvic bones were '/i¢ of an inch thick; they were both alike as to thick- ness. I questioned him as to how he had fed her, and if she had been sick her first laying year. As hie is one of the best breeders in the United States, I could depend on him knowing what he was talking about. I asked him then to take off his hat. I could see by the shape of his head he was a strictly honest man. I then told him that I had never raised that breed of hens, but if it was a Leghorn, it might lay 280 eggs its first year, and if a Plymouth Rock, it might lay 270. He said her trap- nested record showed she laid 276 eggs from the time she commenced to lay in her pullet year until she had laid one year. ‘‘That’s all right,” I replied; ‘“‘but what about the first hen we examined?” ‘‘We have never found any in the trap-nest from her,”’ he said, “‘but she might be in the habit of laying in the yard.’”’ And as he offered $1,000 for her, he was very anxious to get some chickens from her. I explained to him that while most typical beef hens could be made to lay a very small number of eggs in the spring when the crows laid, by feeding them a little lean meat and shrunken wheat and bran ona grass plot of white clover (if the blossoms of the white clover are clipped off), that his hen could not be made to lay, as she was a barren hen, as indicated by the rigid cord that connected both of the pelvic bones together, thus. indicating that nature never intended her to lay. The reader will please bear in mind that the two pelvic bones of a hen are not always of the same thickness. Some hens may have one pelvic bone thicker than the other; when this is the case, add the two together and half of the number will be the right thickness to judge by. For instance, if one pelvic bone was 1/s of an inch and the other one was 1/4, of an inch, the added thickness would be */s of an inch; dividing this would give you °/1¢ of an inch as the thickness of one pelvic bone. Where one bone is thicker than the other, the thinnest one is on the left side of the hen. Our next hen may be another six-finger-abdomen hen, as in Fig. 17; she may be in good condition, as in Fig. 19, and her pelvic bones may be !/s of an inch thick, as in Fig. 25; she would be a 265-egg type hen. Our next hen may be a six-finger-abdomen hen in good condition; pelvic bones #/s inch; she would read six fingers abdomen; good con- dition; pelvic bones #/s of an inch. By consulting Chart 6, we will find this is a 205-egg type hen. Our next hen may be a six-finger-abdomen hen, in good condition; 14-inch pelvic bones; this hen will be a 175-egg type hen. 64. THE CALL OF THE HEN. FIG. 124—ILLUSTRATION OF DIFFERENCE IN ABDOMINAL CAPACITY Note the large, soft, pliable abdomen of the high producer on the left, as compared with the small, hard abdomen of the low producer on the right. This illustration also shows clearly the difference in size of vent in a good layer as compared with a poor layer. Photo from New Jersey Experiment Station. THE CALL OFTHE, HEN. 65 FIG. 144—OVARY AND OVIDUCT OF GOOD AND POOR-LAYING HENS CONTRASTED This remarkable illustration shows, on the reader’s left, the ovary and oviduct of heavy-laying Rhode Island Red hen, and on the right the egg organs from poor-laying hen. Both hens were actively laying, but the poor producer’s ovary shows a much lower state of activity—shorter cycles with long periods between—and this is con- firmed by the noticeable smaller size of the oviduct which suggests also that the hen has not been laying for so long a period as the one on the left. Photo from Conn. (Storrs) Exp. Station. 66 THE CALL OF THE HEN. Our next hen may be a six-finger-abdomen hen, in good condition; pelvic bones 1 inch. We look on Chart 6, and find that 1-inch pelvic bones indicate the 55-egg type hen. Our next hen may be a four-finger-abdomen hen; she may be two fingers out of condition, as in Fig. 21, and her pelvic bones may be 3/,, of an inch thick. We would read her as four fingers abdomen; two fingers out of condition; this would make her a six-finger-abdomen hen if in condition. We look on Chart 6 at !/1.-inch pelvic bone, and find our last hen is a 280-egg type hen, if in condition, and it is up to us to put her in condition and keep her there as nearly as possible. I will admit it is a hard proposition to keep the non-setting typical- egg type hen in condition, but the man that comes the nearest doing so is the best feeder. I will have more to say in regard to the matter of condition in the chapter on Judging Utility Fowls at the Poultry Shows. This work is a matter of line upon line, and I must necessarily repeat the same matter in some respects time after time. But as this is an educational more than an entertaining proposition, I hope that my readers will bear with me. As I said before, there are three types of hens. The hen listed on Chart 1 as '/,s-inch pelvic bone is a typical egg-type hen, because all she consumes over bodily maintenance goes to the production of eggs. The hen listed as 3/s-inch pelvic bone is a dual-purpose hen; half of her vitality is used in producing eggs and half in producing meat. The hen listed as °/s-inch is a typical meat-type hen; all she consumes goes to the production of meat, except what she uses in bodily maintenance. The hen listed as !/1.-inch pelvic bone on Chart 2 is a typical egg-type hen; the hen listed as */s-inch pelvic bone on same chart is a dual-pur- pose hen; and the one listed as 3/s-inch pelvic bone is a typical meat- type-hen; the same rule follows in all the charts. All the hens listed as 1/,.-inch pelvic bone are typical egg-type hens and they can’t be made to pay as a meat proposition. The hens listed in the center of each chart are the dual-purpose hens; they can be used as an egg and as a meat proposition. The hens listed on the bottom of each chart are the meat-type hens. Nature has fitted them for the production of flesh, and there is no human energy that can change them to a paying egg proposition. Between the above three distinct types there are combinations of each adjoining type. This allows sufficient latitude for the preference of each individual breeder. A person can breed the typical egg-type hen and cock bird with pelvic bones 1/15 of an inch thick. If he thinks this type is too delicate, he can breed from the */1.-inch pelvic bone stock; this is my favorite type; the hen of this type is better able to withstand the vicissitudes of the poultry yard than her finer-bred sisters. I will have more to say along this line in the chapter on Broilers. I think we have given sufficient examples in Chapters III, IV, V, VI and VII, to enable the reader to examine a hen so he may be able to arrive at her approximate value for the purpose he wishes to use her for. In a previous chapter we have said there is occasionally found a hen ~seven fingers abdomen. If the reader finds one, he can score her by Chart 6 and add 15 eggs to the number indicated. For instance, if the hen is in good condition and measures seven fingers abdomen and her pelvic bones are */s inch thick, Chart 6 would indicate she is a 205-egg . type bird; we then add 15 eggs to the 205, which gives the hen 220-egg THE CALL OF THE HEN. 67 capacity. If she is five fingers abdomen and two fingers out of condition, we call her seven fingers abdomen, and proceed as above, which gives us the same results. There are two other matters I wish to call the attention of the reader to in this place. One is, that I have found hens occasionally that laid a great deal better by the trap-nest than they scored by the Hogan test, but it was owing to a mistake made in measuring their abdomens, owing to the rear of the breast-bone turning up, sometimes almost an inch over normal shape, thus indicating a smaller abdomen than really was the case. The other matter is a more serious one—in fact, very serious in some flocks. It is the bagging down of the abdomen over the rear of the breast-bone. Every hen used in the breeding-pen should be examined for this defect, far if one of them is bred from, she is almost sure to transmit her weak ovarian system to her offspring. Some of these hens will make remarkable egg records for a year or so, then will never lay another egg; and again, the eggs are liable to be very infertile and more or less thin-shelled; and if you have great numbers of hens, you can hardly tell when these hens stop laying for good, unless you trap-nest them, as their pelvic bones do not close up as readily as hens in normal condition. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure in this case, as it is very easy to prevent all this trouble. I meet hundreds of the above hens in my visits to poultry plants, but never have a case in my yards. I examine all my pullets when about a year old for possible breeders. If a hen satisfies me as to Capacity, Type, and Prepotency, I then hold her as if I were testing her for capacity, except that I hold her by the right leg only. I then lay my hand on her breast, so that it (my hand) will conform to her shape, and draw it slowly along her breast-bone (or keel) from front to rear. When my hand reaches the rear, if I feel the slightest indication of her abdomen dropping the least bit below the rear of the breast-bone, I reject the hen as a breeder, and thereby save myself a world of trouble in the future. } CHART ERYLX PREPOTENCY. We will take up in this chapter Prepotency, the science of breeding poultry, so that we can breed with a definite knowledge of what we are doing, and not leave it to intuition or chance. It is an old saying that “ike begets like;’’ this seems to be true in some cases, but seems not to be true in other cases. Students of human nature can readily see where it has apparently failed. Some children will resemble and act like one parent and some will resemble and act like the other parent; then again, some children will be like neither of the parents. Breeders of horses and cattle are well aware of the variations in offspring from the type and characteristics of sire and dam. It is more through persistency in breeding than the general knowledge of any scientific principle that we have succeeded in producing the grand types of animals we see at our State fairs. The breeding of poultry is no exception to the above rule. 68 THE CALL OF THE HEN. FIG. 184—"X-RAY” SKETCH SHOWING PELVIC ARCHJAND[,]KEEL a. Pubic bones, forming rear part of pelvic arch. b. Rear of keel or breastbone. c. Lateral or sternal processes. ~ FIG. 191—GOOD AND POOR PRODUCERS CONTRASTED AS TO FLEXI- BILITY OF SKIN The skin of the high-producing hen on the left is much more pliable and freer from abdominal fat than the low producer on the right. Photo from Storrs (Conn.) Experiment Station. The skin of the good producer is soft, loose and pliable. THE CALL OF THE HEN. 69 While some breeders have good success in breeding for the desired type of bird, whether for fancy, for eggs, or for flesh, others will have very poor success. The purpose of this chapter is to explain to the breeder who has had poor success a method that will enable him to breed with the full under- standing as to what he is doing. It is a well-known fact among the clothing trade that if a woolen manufacturer has a sample of cloth presented to him, he can manufacture thousands of yards that will be an exact duplicate of the sample. The same is true in other industries. But suppose the reader gives an order to one of our well-known poultry- breeders for 1,000 pullets, to be delivered at four months old, these pullets to be housed, fed, and cared for as the breeder designates, and to approximately lay a certain number of eggs their first laying year; how many breeders do you suppose could fill the order? Until a ma- jority of them can do so the poultry industry will not be on a business basis, but will be more or less of a gamble. I have said that seemingly like does not beget like in some cases. We will take, for instance, a hen that is five fingers abdomen, in good condition, 44-inch pelvic bones. She will scale up as a 205-egg type hen. We will mate up a pen of these hens with a 205-egg type cockerel or cock bird; we raise 100 pullets from this mating and they may scale 175-egg type. We then say, “Like does not produce like.’’ Here is where we make a mistake. In one sense we are right, in another we are wrong. Nature makes no mistakes. We have mated 205-egg- type male and female, and we get as a result 175-egg type product. That’s as plain as the nose on one’s face, and we throw up our hands in despair and say, “It’s all luck and chance.’”’ Another party mates up the same type of birds and gets a lot of pullets that average 210 eggs their first laying year; still another party mates up the same type of birds and does not get a chick. The reader may smile, but this is no dream. A number of such cases have come under my observation. One case was that of a pro- fessor in one of the Southern California public institutions. He had a pen of twelve Black Minorcas, headed by a splendid-looking cock bird; also a pen of twelve Andalusians. He said there was something peculiar about these hens, and he wanted to know if I could detect it. I tested all the Andalusians, and told him they should average 140 eggs their first. laying year, and I would expect twelve eggs out of every thirteen to be fertile. After testing the Minorcas, I told him they would average about 160-egg type, but if they were mine, I would not set any of their eggs while they were mated to the present cock bird, because I would not expect them to hatch, and if they did hatch, they would be degener- ates. He said, ‘‘This is the second season I have bred from the birds; I always get good hatches from the Andalusians; but, although I see the rooster serve the hens, I have never been able to hatch a chicken from the Minorca pen.” I replied, ‘‘He serves the hens out of sym- pathy." Another case was a Barred Rock hen, the only one a neighbor had in a small flock of Houdans. He called me one day, saying he had a remarkable pullet at his place, and he wanted me to call and tell him’ how many eggs she would lay her first laying year. She had been laying two months, and he was keeping her record. I went with him, tested the hen, and told him she might lay 250 eggs, but I did not think that Cc H—4 70 THE CALL OF THE HEN. any of them would hatch. After her first laying year was up, he showed — me her record. She had laid 258 eggs, and although he had a good. Barred Rock cock bird with her, and had set a number of settings under hens, he failed to hatch a single chick. I could cite a great number of such cases. In the first of these cases the fault was with the male bird; in the last case the fault was with the hen; in both cases the trouble was caused by a lack of prepotency (amativeness), and not through any defect in the anatomy of the birds. Everything in the universe is governed by certain immutable laws. If we understand these laws and can discover a way to control them, we may be able to use them to our advantage. Does the reader ever stop to consider these matters? What, in your opinion, is the greatest effort of Nature? The writer thinks it is the effort to reproduce the species in all their different forms of animate | and inanimate life. If the case were otherwise, this earth would be barren of grass and shrubs, of flowers and fruits, and of every living, moving thing on land and in the sea. What a desolate old world this would be with only bare dirt and rocks and water. And when we consider what a wonderful thing life is, can we doubt that Nature has made some extraordinary provisions for controlling its inception? In the wild state the survival of the fittest prevented degeneracy of the species, but under domestication birds cannot follow their instincts; and their owners should be familiar with Nature’s laws in order to be able to breed intelligently. When the writer was twelve years of age he took up the study of human nature, and later had help from that great teacher, Professor O. S. Fowler. Years of practice in dissecting and in anatomy and in the study of the skulls of animals and birds gave me the opportunity to study the construction of the different skulls and classify them as to the known habits of the birds or animals under consideration. The knowledge gained in this way was of inestimable value in later research in the selection and breeding of poultry. I am positive that without this early training I never could have accomplished what I have. After raising my first lot of Leghorns in 1869, I decided to dispose of all breeds but the Leghorns and Light-Brahmas. I said I would raise Leghorns for eggs and Brahmas for meat. Up to that time I had not paid much attention to the individual laying qualities of the birds. Experience had taught me that the Light Brahma, when fed right and of the right age, made a delicious table-fowl, and I was led to believe the Leghorns were all great layers. That was a good many years ago; and we have made wonderful discoveries and progress in science and the arts since that time. The reader can imagine my surprise when I found by experience that some of my Leghorns laid very few eggs and laid them only in the spring months; others laid large numbers and laid late in the fall and early winter. In those days we had no cold-storage plants, and while eggs were very cheap in the summer, they were very dear in the winter, and I decided to experiment with my Leghorns, with a view to getting more eggs in the winter. After a few years of study and experiment, I mated the best egg-type birds and from some pens got good results, from other pens not so good, and from still others very poor results. My previous studies in anatomy had enabled me to select the matings from birds that were all of the same type, and I expected to raise a lot of poultry that would be duplicates of their - THE CALL OF THE HEN. eal parents, as far as their egg-laying qualities were concerned. But after numerous experiments in mating the 180-egg type cock bird with 180- egg type hens, I found I could not depend on getting definite results. Some are born rich, some are born handsome, and some are born lucky. The writer was born with none of these gifts, but with a com- bination of faculties that compelled to invention, to wander and toil and delve in the fields, the by-ways, and the mines of the mysterious. These researches, with the aid received by studying the pioneers in the same lines of investigation, led to the discovery, as the writer thinks, of the fundamental principle that underlies the reproduction of the species. After a number of matings that were more or less discouraging failures, I decided to look to the brain of the bird as the seat of the cause of a great many of the variations between the characteristics of the offspring and those of the parents. I had previously demonstrated by experiment that environment had an influence on the shaping of the skull of the birds. By focusing on this subject the skuli-knowledge I had gained in the previous nine years, I was led to think that brain governed most of the functions of the body, and if so, why not the reproductive function? I reasoned that as I had mated up several pens of the same type of hens with the same type of male birds, and that as there was no difference in their temperaments, that the hens all looked alike, all weighed alike, and were all in the same condition— or, in other words, they were all in perfect condition (to be more explicit, the hens were three fingers abdomen, pelvic bone !/;. of an inch thick; all hens were in good condition; the cock birds were two-finger abdomens, in normal condition, and pelvic bones '/1. of an inch thick; all hens were alike and all cock birds were alike, and all were about a year old); that there must be something apart from the anatomy and physiology of the hen that governed or in some measure controlled the reproductive functions. As I had exhausted all my resources in the above lines, I was very reluctantly obliged to enter a new field of research—the field of Phrenology. I killed the cock birds that had given us the best results, boiled their skulls until free of flesh, and found them as in No. 1, Fig. 35. The skulls of the cock birds that gave the next best results were like No. 2, Fig. 35, and the skulls of the cock birds that gave the ‘poorest results were like No. 4, Fig. 35. The Arrows A, B, C, and D show the base of the brain. If A were continued upward, it would pass through the projection 14 of an inch from the end; if B were continued, it would pass through the projection about !/s of an inch from the end; while C would be at the extreme end of the projection, and D would pass outside the skull. The part of the skull where the arrows 1, 2, 3, 4 point contains the rear lobe of the brain, an examination will show that the development of this portion of the brain corresponds to the shape of the skull at this point. _ And right here is where we were on the point of the second great secret in breeding that would verify the saying that “Like begets like.” The first discovery was, that if we wished to raise pullets that would be good layers, we would have to mate good-laying hens with the same type of male bird, and not with the meat type—that is, the male birds would have to be of the same temperament, of the same anatomy, and of the same physiology as the hen. I found that if I had a hen that laid 180 eggs by the trap-nest, and if I wanted to raise a lot of pullets that would average 180 eggs, I could not depend on the trap- 72 THE CALL OF THE HEN. nest to aid me any,farther,than to tell me the number of eggs a hen laid, what particular eggs she laid, and the progeny of each hen, both male and female. I also found great variations in type in mature cockerels from each individual hen, which we considered was due to the difference in type of the male bird and the difference in vitality of one or both birds at different times during the breeding season; sometimes the hen Fic. 35—Three degrees of amativeness (otherwise called ‘‘prepotency’’). THE CALL OF THE HEN. 73 at other times the cock bird, transmitting their characteristics. When I was assured of this through numerous experiments, I reasoned that my failures were because the male birds were of a different type from the hens, and when I had demonstrated that the male birds were of a different physiology by practice and scientific measures, and mated ac- cordingly, I flattered myself with the assurance that I had discovered all that was necessary in order to breed poultry intelligently. But after more experiments, I was not wholly satisfied with results; and as I had adopted the motto, ‘‘Like begets like,’’ I reasoned that although the birds we had mated were alike, as far as we could see, the remaining difference must be some place where I had failed to look for it. My knowledge of the different variations in form of the skulls of animals and birds of the same breed, together with the knowledge I possessed of human skulls, led me to investigate the head as the only remaining factor in the problem. When I reduced this proposition to a method, and when I was able to measure its potentiality, then I assembled the hens and cock birds, mating the 180-egg type hens and the 180-egg type cock birds, each bird with the same degree of prepotency. Then, and not until then, had I ever knowingly mated like to like. For years, like many others, I thought I had mated males to like females, but I was mistaken. And here is where I discovered my second great secret. After this I mated like to like more intelligently, and the results were more satisfactory. I consider the selection of the male birds for mating along anatomical and physiological lines, together with the proper understanding and use of the faculty that governs the reproductive function, as the greatest discoveries ever made in the poultry industry. The reader may think there is very little difference in the skulls in Fig. 35. If you add an inch to the length of a man’s legs, it does not seem to make much difference in his height, but if you add an inch to the end of his nose, it would make a great difference in his looks. I found this expansion on the back of the skull corresponded to the faculty of amativeness in the human family. I found that when it was large in both male and female the parents possessed the ability to transmit their predominating characteristics to their offspring. If the parents were fancy birds, their progeny would in some cases excel their parents in feather, vigor, and other good qualities. If the parents were of the egg type, some of the chicks would be as good and some better layers and more vigorous than the parents; if of the meat type, the progeny would be of a stronger constitution, of a quicker growth, and assimilate their food better—in a word, if both parents have this faculty (called “prepotency’”’ by some) large, the chicks will be more likely to be equal to, and some will, excel their parents along the lines in which the parents predominate. If the parents have the faculty small, the chicks will not be so good as the parent’stock, but will degenerate along the lines that the parents excel in. If a hen is a 200-egg type and she has this faculty small, she will be just as valuable as an egg-producer as if she had the faculty large, but she will be of no value as a breeder; she will be an old maid from choice, and her eggs will not be fertile, if she has the faculty small enough. If the male bird has it small, his eggs will not hatch well, and if totally lacking, they will not hatch at all. I have found a few cases where the cock bird had the faculty of prepotency 74 THE CALL OF THE HEN. (amativeness) large and failed to fertilize the eggs, but the cases were very rare, and I attributed it to weakened or diseased nerves; as, for in- stance, the nerves of the teeth or sciatic nerve, in the human being. i Fic. 36—Holding hen ready to put in sack. Fig. 36 shows how to hold a hen before putting her in a sack to examine her for prepotency. : ees 37—Holding legs with right hand and gathering sack around legs with left and. Fig. 37 shows how to put her in the sack, holding legs with right hand, with back of hen against bottom of sack, and gathering sack around legs with left hand. THE CALL OF TEE HEN. 75 Fig. 38 shows tying sack around legs so that she cannot move while examining her for prepotency. (Cut a little off the corner of the sack —just enough to get her head through. Hen in Fig. 38 is too far out of the sack.) Fic. 38—Tying sack around legs so hen cannot move while examining her for prepotency. This method of holding the bird is only necessary while you are learning. If there is someone to hold the hen for you, it would be quicker. When you become skillful, you can hold the bird as in Fig. 43. The best way for a beginner to learn how to handle a hen for pre- potency is to select a hen you wish for the table. Cut the corner off of a gunny sack; hold her as in Fig. 36; put your hen in sack and tie her, as in Figs. 37 and 38; then make a hook of wire or a hair pin, attach it to a string with small weight or stone; hang hen up against barn or shed, head down, back against building; take long-bladed pocket or other knife with sharp point, insert in hen’s mouth, and draw across the roof of the mouth at the back of the brain at the junction of the neck, severing the blood-veins, then immediately force the knife through the roof of the mouth into the brain. The knife should be forced well into the brain, which will sever the nerves, and the bird will feel no pain; then insert hook in the nostril, and the weight will hold the neck straight. The hen should bleed freely. After bleeding has stopped, clean mouth and surrounding parts of blood, and place hen in some convenient place— on a box or coop. The thumb-nail on the left hand and nail on the forefinger of the right hand should be longer than the thumb and finger, so the flesh on end of thumb and finger will not prevent the nail from entering the slight depression between the skull and neck. We will suppose the reader has handled the hen as suggested above. Lay the dead hen as in Fig. 39; take hold of comb or head and pull neck up with right hand, and while holding head up the neck will be stretched out. Turn the head down with right hand, so the back of the head will point up and beak will point down as much as possible. This will make the projection of the brain (arrow 1, Fig. 35) appear more promi- nent, so it will be easier to locate it; then draw ball of thumb of left hand 76 THE CALL OF THE HEN. down on head until you feel back of skull; when you feel back of skull with ball of thumb, then turn first joint of thumb down until thumb-nail fits in between end of skull and neck and well up against base of brain; then, while holding left hand and thumb as in Fig. 39, put forefinger of right hand at base of brain behind the ear, as in Fig. 39, between the neck and the skull and against the skull behind the ear, as in Fig. 39. Fic. 39—Showing thumb '/, of an inch ahead of forefinger; indicating hen is total- ly lacking in prepotency. (See Skull No. 4, Fig. 35.) The ear can readily be discovered by lifting up its hairy covering. The thumb-nail must be held perfectly straight across the neck, as in Fig. 39, and not sideways; and the forefinger must be held perfectly at right angles with the thumb, or the length of projection (arrow 1, Fig. 35) from the base of the brain (arrow 4, Fig. 35) cannot be measured accu- rately. ~The reader will notice that my thumb-nail is ahead of my forefinger- nail in Fig. 39; this indicates that this hen is wholly lacking in the ability to transmit any redeeming qualities to her offspring, also that she has no desire for offspring. If this were a male bird, the eggs from his matings would be infertile. Fig. 40 shows thumb on line with forefinger. Mat- THE CALL OF THE HEN. 77 ings os this type of head would not produce very fertile eggs, and the Been would deteriorate each year if they were bred from stock with eads like this. If the parents were 200-egg type, their egg-yield and vitality would be reduced each generation of breeding. If they were of the beef type, their vitality and ability to produce flesh economically would diminish with each generation. If they were a fancy type, the breeder would be up against a stone wall of discouraging experiments. Fic. 40—Thumb even with forefinger; indicating she has prepotency small. (See Skull No. 3, Fig. 35.) I would advise the reader to take special notice of Fig. 43, as this cut shows the method of determining prepotency plainer than any of the others. Fig. 41 shows a hen with prepotency full—i. e., thumb ?/, of an inch behind forefinger. Sometimes a poultryman will be lucky enough to mate up a lot of pens of the right type for his purpose with heads like Figs. 41, 42, and 48. His business prospers, and his neighbors call him “lucky.”’ While others are going bankrupt raising poultry, he holds his own and is making a good living. Figs. 42 and 43 show a hen with an excellent head for breeding purposes. The thumb in this case is 78 THE CALL OF THE HEN. lf of an inch behind the forefinger. If this hen is mated to a male bird of the same type and prepotency, her eggs will be very fertile, and a large number of the progeny will be equal to and some will excel the parent stock in the lines that predominate in the parents. By selecting these few specimens each season for breeding, it is possible to breed a highly valuable type in the course of time. Fig. 43 shows how to hold a bird between the knees after you become proficient in testing the head while the bird is in a sack. After a little practice you will become so proficient that you can test birds for prepotency without having to put them in a sack. Fic. 41—Showing thumb '/s of an inch behind forefinger; indicating hen has pre- potency full. (See Skull No. 2, Fig. 35.) CHAP TERI TEstTING HENs on A LARGE SCALE, Ustnc Cuarts 44 AND 45. I will describe in this chapter how I cull hens when we have large numbers of them, as we have in poultry plants in California. I shall THE CALL OF THE HEN. 79 take it for granted that the reader has no method of selecting the good from the poor layers, except, perhaps, the ‘‘Walter Hogan System”’ or some of its pirated forms that are now used extensively in all parts of the civilized world, and which is based on the theory that the value of a hen as an egg-producer depends on the relative distance apart of her pelvic bones and the thinness of same. We will suppose the reader has 300 hens; one lot are about a year and four months old, another lot are about two years and four months old, and another lot are about three years and four months old. Each lot has been kept in separate yards, so there can be no mistake in regard to their ages, or they have been toe-punched or otherwise marked. We notice more or less feathers lying around the yard, thus indicating the season of the year when moulting is near at hand. Everything else being equal, the poorest hen moults first, and if she isa very poor layer, she will stop laying when she begins to moult and will not lay again until the crows lay in the spring. We consider it is about time to cull out the poor layers and send them to market. Fic. 42—Showing thumb 4 of an inch behind forefinger; indicating hen has pre- potency large. (See Skull No. 1, Fig. 35.) 80 THE CALL OF THE HEN. Fic. 43—Showing how to hold bird between knees after you become proficient in testing head while bird is in sack. 