iiiniiU'v. 



1921. 



8 C T E X T 1 PTC A (! R 1 (' V 1, T l' RE. 



31 



same relative position when measured. Otherwise this 

 measurement was not hard to make and was fairly 

 consistent. 



5. DISTANCE BETWEEN THE PELVIC BONES.— 

 Measured bj' placing the thumbs against the end of the 

 pelvic Ijones and bringing the calipers against the 

 thumbs. Much depended on the pressure exerted on 

 the pelvic bones and with the calipers against the 

 thumbs so that this measurement like all the others is 

 relative only. 



6. BREADTH AT HIP.— Measured by pressing the 

 calipers on the bony structure just back of the hip 

 bones. More experimenting was done to determine 

 where to make this measurement than with any other 

 but in spite of this the results were sufficientlj'' con- 

 sistent to indicate that they were relatively accurate. 



Besides these the following were estimated : — 



1. PELVIS OR BODY WALL including pelvic bone 

 e.stimated to sixteenthesi of an indi. This was only 

 relativelv accurate. 



2. STRAIGHTNESS OF KEEL.— Divided into five 

 classes, class one straight, class five very crooked and 

 the rest intermediate. Class two was very slightly 

 crooked and would ordinarily be called straight. • 



3. CONDITION.— The birds were divided into five 

 classes as to condition, class one in very good condition, 

 class five very thin, and the rest intermediate. This 

 classification was based largely on the amount of flesh 

 on the keel and also on the fat deposited in the abdo- 

 men. Most of the birds fell in class two as in fairly 

 good condition. A mental scale was used for these 

 estimates but as the same person did all the estimating, 

 the results are believed to be relatively accurate and 

 were found to show little variation. 



A note was also made of whether the birds were in 

 laying condition. In all tables contrasting laying with 

 nonlaying hens, all birds that were laying when one 

 of the measurements was taken are classified as layers 

 except where otherwise stated. 



The other data used were taken from tlie records of 

 the poultry department and include total production 

 for the year; intensity of egg production as shown by 

 highest monthly egg production : duration of laying 

 period, represented by months; and lastly, seasonal 

 distribution of egg production as shown by egg produc- 

 tion November first to February twenty-eighth in- 



clusive, March first to June thirtieth inclusive, and July 

 first to October thirty-first inclusive. These are all 

 based on records for the hen year November first 1918, 

 to October thirty-first 1919, inclusive. It will be seen 

 fi-om llhis that the first or winter period is the farthest 

 removed from the time that measurements were taken. 



Ret-ords of broodinefis and of the weight of eggs laid 

 also obtained for the same period. The latter were 

 based on tlie averages for the weights of all eggs laid 

 every fourth week for the entire period. 

 Experimental Results. 



In order to show the relation between total egg pro- 

 duction and distribution of production, correlation 

 tables of these were made. The coefficients obtained 

 are given in Table 1. There is a high correlation in each 

 case so that any measurement showing a correlation to 

 egg production would also be expected to show a cor- 

 relation with one or the other of those showing distri- 

 bution. 



From Table 1, it will be noticed that there is no cor- 

 relation between length of keel and total annual egg 

 production or length of laying period as expressed in 

 the number of months. This latter result is further 

 strengthened by the absence of correlation between 

 length of keel and winter egg production and late sum- 

 mer of July 1 — October 31st production. It will be 

 seen that there is some correlation between length of 

 keel and highest monthly egg production. There is also 

 some i-elatiion Lo March 1st — June 30t;h production, but 

 this is so small that it can hardly be considered signi- 

 ficant unless further data show the same results. 



By referring to Table 1, it will be seen that there is 

 some correlation between straightness of keel and total 

 egg production, while the next coefficient of correla- 

 tion shows tliat there is no relation to intensity of pro- 

 duction. To further test the relation of straightness of 

 keel to production, all the birds were divided into two 

 groups, those that were classified as three or more 

 falling into the crooked keeled group and the rest in 

 the straight keeled group, since groups one and two 

 were practicall}' straight keeled. There were one 

 hundred birds in the first group and one hundred and 

 eight.v in the straight keeled group. The average dura- 

 tion of laying period was 9.2800 ± .1183 months for 

 the first group and 8.8944 ± .0853 months for the 

 second group, showing that there is practically no rela- 



Subject. 



No of months laid 



Highest ^Monthly Egg Production 



Egg Production. Nov. 1-Feb. 2S 



Mar. 1-June 30 



Julv 1-Oct. 31 



1. 

 2 



3. 



4. " 



5. " 



Length of Keel 



Table 1. 



Relative 

 Total Egg Production 



No. of Months Laid 



" " Highest Monthly Egg Production 



" " Egg Production, Nov. 1- Fcli. 28 



«' " ■' " Mar. 1 — June 30 . 



" " July 1— Oct. 31 



Straightness of Keel . . . . • Total Egg Production ■ 



Highest Monthly Egg Production 



Curvature of Keel Total Eeg Production — .1157 



No. of Months Laid —.1176 



" '■ Highest Monthly Egg Production — .0355 



Length of Ke el . Total Egg Production —.3256 



Weight of Birds. 



Coeffic 

 {\)rrel 

 .8926 

 .7415 

 .69.52 

 .7816 

 .8355 

 .0319 



-.0605 

 .1799 



-.0897 

 .1232 

 .0550 

 .1639 

 .0908 



ient of 

 ation 

 ±.0082 

 ±.0181 

 ±.0208 

 ±.0157 

 ±.0122 

 ±.0403 

 ±.0402 

 ±.0340 

 -t-.0400 

 ±.0397 

 ±.0402 

 ±.0392 

 ±.0400 

 ±.0398 

 d:.0397 

 ±.0402 

 ±.0360 



