94 THE CALL OF THE HEN. 
The enclosed article gives the results of my six months’ test of the system; 
these results are so striking that I have ventured to send them to you 
for publication in your paper. I hope you will be able to use it as getting 
these facts has involved a great deal of close personal attention and effort. 
I presented a copy of Mr. Hogan’s book to a neighbor poultryman 
and induced another to send foracopy. The book was entirely unknown 
in this section. Both of my friends are enthusiastic about the system 
and have already found it of great value. They are both expert poultry- 
men, one of them having charge of Mr. C. F. Lewis’ poultry yards here 
and the other having been in the business for fourteen years. The 
latter has found the chapters devoted to prepotency of cocks especially 
valuable and now understands why his flock went all to pieces some 
years ago after five years of careful upbuilding. 
Very truly yours, 
CHARLES H. PARKER. 
“Do the physical characteristics of a pullet or hen—the distance 
between the pelvic bones and the breast bone, the width of the pelvic 
bones and the condition as indicated by the amount of flesh on the 
breast bone—enable a poultryman to foretell, with approximate accuracy, 
the number of eggs that a pullet or hen will lay in a year? This is the 
question the writer decided to answer for himself after reading Walter 
Hogan’s book ‘The Call of the Hen.’ 
“If the system as outlined by Mr. Hogan is to be relied upon the 
use of the trap-nest would not be necessary except for pedigree work. 
No poultryman needs to be told how valuable, if reliable, such a system 
would be in enabling him, with a minimum of labor and expense, to build 
up a flock with a high egg yield, to regulate feeding by separating the 
egg from the meat type and in many cases to turn losses into profits. 
“This book made such an impression upon the writer that he at 
once determined to measure his hens according to the directions given 
by Mr. Hogan, to note the egg-laying capacity as thus indicated and to 
check this forecast with an actual trap-nest record. 
“Following are the very striking results of this experiment, extending 
over a period which put the system to a severe test—the months of 
September, October, November, December, January and February, in 
the state of Connecticut. The hens were Fishel’s White Rocks, fed 
during the test, according to the Cornell formula and confined in yards 
allowing 100 square feet per bird. Each hen was carefully measured and 
leg-banded, great care being taken that no mistakes were made in the 
measurements. “These measurements and the egg-laying capacity they 
indicated according to the system were as follows: 
Capacity Condition Pelvic bones, 
Hen No. in fingers. in fingers. inches. Egg capacity. 
R10 5 1 1/, 235 
G3 5 1 1/4 235 
G7 5 1 3/¢ 205 
R8 4 2 5/6 205 
Gil 5 1 5/5 205 
G8 3 2 a/¢ 175 
R4 5 0 Vo 145 
R6 3 1 '/s 115 
G9 4 1 a/ 85 
