THE CALL OF THE HEN. 109 
I:used males of my own raising, I should have done better, but I had 
net. By the way, I found two high-priced and ‘high-scoring’ birds 
used at the Crookston Station in 1904 absolutely without value, and Mr. 
Greene now agrees with me fully that they were, although he was at 
the time quite indignant when I pronounced his costly beauties worthless. 
I may say here that, while I found one very good exhibition bird in 
this experiment station flock that was wholly worthless as a layer, I am 
pleased indeed to be able to state that one bird which had taken several 
prizes for markings, etc., I found to be a priceless layer. I never saw 
but one bird that came anywhere near being that hen’s equal. I found 
one, however, with very poor markings that outranked any hen but her. 
From this time on breeding hastened matters fully as much as selec- 
tion, and I soon had—or rather, to be accurate, at the end of six years 
from my first start I had a FLOCK AVERAGING CLOSE AROUND 
250 EGGS EACH PER YEAR; A FLOCK PAYING ME MORE 
THAN DOUBLE THE PROFIT MY FIRST FLOCK COULD. | Dur- 
ing the last few years of this period I again and again, for experimental 
purposes, mated excellent hens with narrow-pelvic-boned males, and every 
time a crop of pullets that varied greatly in egg-yield was the result. 
Again and again I bred wide-pelvic-boned males with narrow-boned 
females with the same results. But wide-pelvic-boned males with hens 
of the same: formation (with the exception now and then at far-apart 
intervals, a freak) brought excellent layers. Occasionally a male bird 
failed to transmit well, but this I afterwards found was only when it 
was wholly lacking in masculine qualities, as denoted by the width and 
depth of head and back of neck, with other indications common to mas- 
culinity in all other animals. From this time I began. mating wide- 
pelvic-boned males with my widest hens and a marked increase in the 
number of great layers was evident—in fact, the third year it was the 
great exception to find anything but first-class layers among the pullets. 
Its ADVANTAGES. 
The advantages of this method for one owning even a small flock 
of birds are so apparent that space need not be given to discuss it. To 
one having a large flock it means, must mean, a small fortune, in addi- 
tional profit, with no more labor or investment; to those engaged in 
selling eggs for hatching it is bound to mean everything in the near 
future. It would be simply suicidal for a farmer, or anyone depending 
upon the eggs of his flock for the profit, to be so unbusinesslike as to buy 
eggs for hatching from untested flocks. We do not believe it would 
be possible to find one who would do so, after knowing from experiment 
stations and otherwise that the method is unfailing. 
Some of the advantages over trap-nesting have been stated; per- 
haps the’ strongest being that we cannot trap-nest roosters. In ad- 
dition, I might call attention to the fact that trap-nesting a single bird 
must extend over the entire year to be at all accurate, and would take 
many times the amount of time it would require—by this method— 
to settle the laying possibilities of a thousand pullets. <A little more 
time would settle the laying powers of a large mixed flock at mixed 
laying seasons, which might require two or at least three examinations 
a week or ten days apart. 
