The United States Department of Agriculture did not take up poultry work until 1906. The publications issued by the department before that time were written by outsiders and printed by the Government.

The following is the list of the addresses of the experiment stations who have taken a leading interest in poultry work. It is not worth while giving a list of poultry bulletins, as many of them are out of print and can only be consulted in a library.

Maine--Orono.

Ma.s.s.--Amherst.

Conn.--Storrs.

Rhode Is.--Kingston.

New York--Ithaca.

New York--Geneva.

Maryland--College Park.

West. Va.--Morgantown.

Iowa--Ames.

Kansas--Manhattan.

Utah--Logan.

Calif.--Berkeley.

Oregon--Corvalis.

U.S. Gov.--Washington, D.C.

Ontario--Guelph (Canada).

Many foreign governments have us out-distanced in the encouragement of the poultry industry. Our Canadian neighbors have done much more practical work in getting out among the farmers and improving the stock and methods along commercial lines. As a result the Canadians have built up a nice British trade with which we have thus far not been able to compete. The work by the Ontario Station on the subject of incubation is discussed in the Chapter on Incubation.

Australia, like Canada, has given much practical a.s.sistance in marketing the poultry products, the government maintaining packing stations, where the poultry is packed for export. The Australian laying contests are quoted in the present volume. They outcla.s.s anything else in the world along that line.

In England, Ireland and especially in Denmark, the government, or societies encouraged by the Government, have done a great deal to develop the poultry industry. Depots for marketing and grading are maintained and the stock of the farmers is improved by fowls from the government breeding farms.

The Story of the "Big c.o.o.n."

With apologies to Joel Chandler Harris, I will tell a little story.

Uncle Remus was telling the little boy about the "big c.o.o.n." It seems that the "big c.o.o.n" had been seen on numerous occasions, but all efforts at his capture had failed. One night they saw the "big c.o.o.n" up in the 'simmon tree, in the middle of the ten-acre lot. All hands and the dogs were summoned. To be sure of bagging the game, the tree was cut down. The dogs rushed in but there was no c.o.o.n.

"But, Uncle Remus," said the little boy, "I thought you said you saw the big c.o.o.n in the tree."

"Laws, chile," replied Uncle Remus, "doesn't youse know dat it am mighty easy for folks to see something dat ain't dar, when dey are lookin' fer it?"

When scientific experimenters entered the poultry field about fifteen years ago, they found it swarming with old ladies' notions.

For everything a reason was given, but these reasons were derived from the kind of dreams where that which pleases the human mind is seized upon and search is made to find ideas to back it, not because it is true, but because it "listens good" to the dreamer. The first duty of the scientist was to banish these will-o'-the-wisp ideas that lead to no practical results.

For ill.u.s.tration Round eggs were supposed to hatch pullets and long ones c.o.c.kerels. Eggs will not hatch if it thunders. Shipped eggs must be allowed to rest before hatching, the drug store was the universal source of relief when the chickens became sick, and red pepper and patent foods were the egg foods par excellence. These things, thanks to the scientist, are no longer believed or regarded by well read poultrymen, and instead his attention has been turned to matters having a more happy relation to his bank account.

In clearing away the useless popular notions, the scientists themselves have not been free from their influence, especially when they seemed to agree with accepted scientific theory. Many, indeed, are the 'c.o.o.ns in poultry science that have been seen because they were being looked for.

As a partial explanation it should be said that men available for scientific poultry work are very scarce. Poultry keepers schooled in the University of the Poultry Yard have no conception of scientific methods, and would explain experimental results by a theory that would fail to fit elsewhere. The available scientists on the other hand are seldom poultrymen.

Among the first men to take up animal husbandry work of all kinds, were the veterinarians. For years the only poultry publications put out by the U.S. Government were by veterinarians. These dust covered volumes with their five color plates of the fifty-seven varieties of tapeworms, still rest on the shelves of public libraries, a monument to the time when the practical poultryman knew only things that weren't so, and the scientific poultryman knew only things that were useless.

The first general law that all experimenters should know and the ignorance of which has caused and still causes the waste of the major portion of experimental brains and money, we will call the "Law of Chance." Let the reader who is not familiar with such things take two pennies and toss them upon the table. They are both heads up. He tosses them again, one comes heads, the other tails. The third time repeats the second. The fourth both come tails. The law of chance says this is correct. Heads should appear 25 per cent., tails 25 per cent., and mixed 50 per cent. of the time. Now let the reader try this in a lot of twelve tosses. Does it prove the law?

Try it again. Are all lots alike? Now pitch a hundred times, then pitch pennies all day. By night the law will be so near proven that the experimenter will be willing to concede its validity.

Now suppose the lots of twelve tosses, each were lots of twelve hens, one Plymouth Rocks, the other Wyandottes, or one fed corn and the other wheat. The law of chance clearly proves that the larger number of unites, the nearer the theoretical truths will be the experimental results. Note, however, that small lots may by chance be as near the truth as large lots.

In practice two grave errors are made: First, conclusions are drawn from small lots compared with each other; second, conclusions are drawn from large lots compared with small lots. In the first case both may be off; in the latter case the small one may be off.

Examples of the first error are to be found in the scores of contradicting breed and feed tests, that were published in the early days of poultry research. The second error is exemplified in the Ontario experiments in incubation, to which reference has already been made.

Here is a further example of this error. From the fifth egg laying compet.i.tion at the Hawkesbury Agricultural College in Australia, I copy the following:

No. of Hens. Variety. Ave. Egg Yield.

6 Cuckoo Leghorn 190.16 30 S.C. Brown Leghorn 177.00 138 S.C. White Leghorn 174.93 12 R.C. Brown Leghorn 173.50 12 R.C. White Leghorn 172.66 18 Buff Leghorn 160.55 6 Black Leghorn 138.33

The ranking of Cuckoo Leghorns as first is a chance happening due to the small number; likewise the Black Leghorns had a streak of bad luck and received lowest place. To one not familiar with such work, the real significance of the table is that the S.C.W. Leghorns did the best work. A totaling of all other varieties gives 84 fowls with an average egg production of 170.5, which bears out the conclusion.

As these birds were all kept in pens of six, we would expect to find the highest single pen to be White Leghorns, because, when compared with all other Leghorns, they have both the highest average and the greatest number. This accords with the fact that as the highest single pen is found to be White Leghorns with an egg yield of 239 eggs.

The above ill.u.s.trates another important phase of the laws of chance, which says that not only is the average likely to be nearer the theoretical average sought when the number is increased, but that the individual extremes will be more removed.

Important Experimental Results at the Illinois Station.

From an Illinois Experiment Station report, the following is quoted:

"The stock used was Barred Plymouth Rock pullets. These pullets were a very uniform Barred Rock stock that had been bred as an individual strain for many years. They were practically the same age, and except for the factors mentioned were treated as uniformly as possible.

First Year's Results.

No. Hens. Diet. Ave. Egg Yield.

10 Nitrogenous Diet 132.9 10 Carbonaceous Diet 128.4 10 Wet Wash 155.8 10 Dry Wash 111.4

"The results of the first test are somewhat surprising for it is generally believed that the nitrogenous diet is best for laying hens. The difference indicated in the first year's results was so light that it was decided to repeat the experiment the second year.

"As the wet wash is clearly proven to be superior, these hens were used the second year to compare meat meal with fresh cut bone.

Second Year's Result.

No. Hens. Diet. Ave. Egg Yield.

10 Nitrogenous 142.2 10 Carbonaceous 134.5

10 Meat Meal 102.2 10 Green Cut Bone 128.9

"The results of the second year clearly indicate the great superiority of green cut bone as compared with the dry unpalatable meat meal. The comparison of a highly nitrogenous ration with that of a ration consisting largely of corn, while showing the advantages of the nitrogenous rations, does not show the contrast expected.

"Some visiting poultrymen expressed the opinion that corn is a better poultry food than commonly supposed. Considering this fact and the great fundamental importance of the question at issue, it was decided to repeat the experiment a third year, and feed a large number of birds on each ration.

No. Hens. Diet. Ave. Egg Yield.

100 Nitrogenous 126.9 100 Carbonaceous 127.2"