AGRICULTURAL & Macmmfir» C8LLEGE 0F TEXAS LIBRAR*“°-6”-‘°M TEXAS AGRI ULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN NO. 246 JUNE, I919 DIVISION OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY Report of the First Texas National Egg- Laying Contest B. YOUNGBLOOD, DIRECTOR COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS 'No. 1. STATION STAFFT ADMINISTRATION B. YoUNcBLoon, M. S., Director A. B. CoNNER, B. S., Vice Director J. M. JoNEs, A. M., Assistant Director CHAS. A. FELKER, Chief Clerk A. S. WARE, Secretary _ _ W. T. BRiNK,_B. S., Executive Assistant in Charge o Library and Publication CHARLES OSOLIK, Technical Assistant VETERINARY SCIENCE *M. FRANCIS, D. V. M., Chief H. Scuunrr, D V. S., Veterinarian D. H. BENNETT, V. M. D., Veterinarian CHEMISTRY G. S. FRAPS, Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist S. E. AsBURY, M. S., Assistant Chemist S. LOMANITZ, B. S., Assistant Chemist FRANCES SuuueRELL, B. S.,Assistant Chemist WALDO WALKER, Assistant Chemist HORTICULTURE H. NEss, M. S., Chief W. S. Horcmuss, Horticulturist ANIMAL INDUSTRY J. M. J0N1=:s_, A. M., Chief; Sheep and Goat Investigations IJ. C. BURNS, B. S., Animal Husbandman in Charge of Reef Cattle Investigations (on leave) RV. EWING, M S., Animal Husbandman in Charge of Swine Investigations _ C. HUBBARD, B. S., Assistant Animal H usbandman W. L. MAYER, Poiiltryman .......................... .., Dairyman ENTOMOLOGY F. B. PADDOCK, M.S.,Chief,-'State Entomologist H. J. REINHARD, B. S., Entomologist W. E. JAcKsoN. B. S., Assistant Entomologist AGRONOMY A. B. CONNER, B. S., Chief A. H. Lemma, B. S., Agronomist E. W. GEvER, B. S., Agronomist H. H. LAUDE, M. S., Agronomist PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY J. J. TAUBENHAUS, Ph. D., Chief FORESTRY E. O. SIECKE, M. F., Chief, State Forester PLANT BREEDING E. P. HUMBERT, Ph. D., Chief FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS H. M. ELIOT, M. S., Chief SOIL SURVEY **W. T. CARTER, JR.. B. S., Chief J. F. STROUD, Soil Surveyor T. M. BUSHNELL, B. S., Soil Surveyor W. B. FRANCIS, B. S., Soil Surveyor FEED CONTROL SERVICE F. D. FULLER, M. S., Chic JAMES SULLIVAN, Executive Secretary SUBSTATIONS Beeville, Bee County _ I. E. COWART, M. S., Superintendent No. 2. Troup, Smith County W. S. Howcnxxss, Superintendent No. 3. Angleton, Brazoria County E. B. REYNoLns, M. S., Superintendent No. 4. Beaumont, Jeflerson County A. H. PRINCE, B. S., Superintendent No. 5. Temple, Bell County _ D. T. KiLLouGn, B. S., Superintendent Denton, Denton County No. 6. McDowELL, B. S., Superintendent C. H. No. 7. Spur, Dickens County _ R. E. DICKSON, B. S., Superintendent 1'As of July 1, 1919. No. 8. Lubbock, Lubbock County R. E. KARPER. B. S., Superintendent D. L. JoNEs, Scientific Assistant No. 9. Pecos, Reeves County J. W. JACKSON, B. S., Superintendent No. l0. '(Feeding and Breeding Substation), College Station, Brazos County J. W. JENNmcs, B. S., Superintendent .............................. .., Scientific Assistant Nacogdoches, Nacogdochea County G. T. McNEss, Superintendent No. 12. Chillicothe, Hardeman County A. B. CRoN, B. S., Superintendent V. E. HAFNER, B. S., Scientific Assistant No. 14. Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counties‘ E. M. PETERs, B. S., Superintendent G. R. WARREN, B. S., Shepherd IIn cooperation with School of Agriculture, A. & M. College of Texas. *In cooperation with the School of Veterinary Medicine, A. 8c M. College of Texas. "In cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture. W>WHA>F m >ZZC>F mmm+>52m flOzamwmmHpfigZd. [Blank Page in Original Bulletin] CONTENTS PAGE Origin of the contest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. '7 Popularity of the contest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. '7 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 First year’s contest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Housing . . . . . . . . . Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 Mortality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1O Rations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 Show room scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 Unidentified eggs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 Litter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 Correlation of feed consumption and egg production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Period of production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19 Marketing the product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19 Broodiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2O Disqualified birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2O Breed for winter egg production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Cost of producing eggs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22 Weight of the birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Summary of the first contest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22 Announcement of a second contest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Bulletin No. 246 June, 1919 REPORT OF THE FIRST TEXAS NATIONAL EGG-LAYING CONTEST BY F. W. KAZMEIER, DIRECTOR or CONTEST’? The Texas National Egg-Laying Contest is a cooperative project of the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and the Extension Service of the A. and M. College of Texas. The Extension Service has under- taken the responsibility of issuing monthly reports of the contest to all persons sufficiently interested to request them. These reports entail an extra effort on the part of the mailing department, and it is only through the efforts of T. O. Walton, Director of‘ the Extension Service, and C. M. Evans, Chief of the Animal Iudustry Division of the Exten- sion Service, that it has been possible to give the contest reports proper publicity. v ' ORIGIN OF THE CONTEST The first Texas National Egg-Laying Contest was encouraged and fostered by the Texas Poultry Raisers’ Association, an organization com- posed of the leading poultry breeders of Texas. _ At the annual meeting in July, 1917, of this organization a special conference was called to consider the possibilities of holding a Texas egg-laying contest. The conference included such men as T. A. Bowden, Palestine; George Gray, Boerne; D. C. Moore, Houston; R. W. Welch, Houston; Mrs. M. Sanford. Rockdale; G. W. Good, El Campo; R. N. Harvey, College Station; T. J. Conway, College Station; F. W. Kaz- meier, College Station, and many others. Theconsensus of opinion was that no efforts should be spared to make the contest possible. The association elected the following as the egg-laying contest com- Iifttee: F. W. Kazmeier, College Station, Texas, chairman; George Gray, Boerne; Mrs. Sanford, Rockdale; Walter Burton, Arlington; Lilian Hazle, College Station; R. N. Harvey, College Station. This committee, in a conference with B. Youngblood, Director of the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, found that the latter was very much in favor of the contest, and that he Would, through the Station, provide the houses, yards, and labor to carry on the contest. This in- formation made it possible for the committee to report back to the asso- ciation that the contest was assured. The association then elected R. N. Harvey as superintendent of the contest and F. W. Kazmeier as director. POPULARITY OF CONTEST There is no question that the contest is filling a long-felt need. Over one thousand personal requests for entry in the second contest are on file. This clearly indicates that Texas poultry breeders Want the con- test continued. r *Mr. Kazmeier is Poultry Husbandman for the Extension Service, A. and M. College of Texas. 8 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. PURPOSE At a recent meeting of the National War Emergency Poultry Feder- ation at Chicago one of the most important facts brought out Was that during and after the War the general conditions in the business World will necessitate greater efficiency in poultry husbandry. It was clearly demonstrated that the average egg production per hen in the United FIGURE 1—BARRED PLYMOUTH ROCK NO. 176, 207 EGGS States Was entirely too low, and that the poultry breeders should be en- couraged to increase the productiveness of flocks and individuals. In Texas the average production per hen is not more than sixty eggs. Officially conducted egg-laying contests are absolutely necessary to furnish official trap nest records of the performance of fowls. Records’ FIRsT TEXAS NATIONAL EGG-LAYING CONTEST. 9 from private sources do not carry the confidence and reliability of official records. Poultry breeders may send their best individuals to these contests. have them trap-nested for a year and returned to them. The individuals Inaking good records may then be used as foundation stock for the breeding flock. FIRST Yniuis CONTEST The first Texas National Egg-Laying Contest Was not large. The war, (lrouth, and many other conditions operated against a large entry. Housing space Was limited. Labor was exceedingly hard to get. It FIGURE zzfis. c. WHITE LEGHORN NO. 40, 201 sees is felt, however, that, by successfully overcoming the many difficulties in the Way, a start in the right direction has been made. HOUSING The first Texas National Egg-Laying Contest birds Were housed in four houses, each house 14 feet by 14 feet, with double yards 28 feet by 150 feet. This necessitated housing different varieties together. It was possible, hoivever, to house them according to size of birds. Birds of a similar disposition were housed together. As far as possible all of each variety were housed together. One house Was full of S. C. White Leg- horns, and one house of S. C. Rhode Island Reds. In one house were Reds, Rocks, lVyandottes, Rihode Island Whites, and Orpingtons. In 10 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. another house were S. C. White Leghorns, S. C. Buff Leghorns and Sicilian Buttercups. It will be noted from the foregoing that several varieties and even several breeds were housed together. Some people may consider this a disadvantage. The fact remains, however, that under these conditions the many varieties are subjected to a better comparative test than if each variety or entry were housed by itself. The results of this contest may in all fairness be compared to those obtained with flocks kept under general farm conditions, because no special efforts were made to force for an abnormal egg production. The open front type of houses, with wooden shutters on east, west, FIGURE 3——S. C. RHODE ISLAND RED NO. 162, 200 EGGS and north was used. The houses had concrete floors and foundations. The shed roof type of structure is used. The fixtures included roost platforms, suspended perches, trap nests, water dishes, dry mash hoppers, and feed cans. The houses were cleaned and disinfected regularly. The birds were kept free from lice and mites. MORTALITY A total of twenty-three birds died during the year- Two died be- cause of vent gleet. Four died of egg troubles. One was accidentally killed. Seven were smothered to death in the trap nests during a very hot period in June. It will also be noticed that nine deaths, or almost fifty per cent. of the yearly mortality, occurred in June, during the Fmsr Tums NATIONAL EGG-LAYING CONTEST. 11 hottest period of the year. The mortality of 8.25 per cent. for the year is lower than in many other contests, and would have been con- siderably lower had it not been for the heavy loss in June, due to extreme heat and too close nests. Considering the fact that these birds were gathered up from all sections of the State and housed together, the mortality was 10w. There is no question but that chickens can stand less heat than cold, hence the houses should be built accordingly. RATIONS At the beginning of thecontest the following ration was fed: Scratch grain- 200 pounds wheat Dry mash mixture——- 25 pounds beef scraps 10 pounds cottonseed meal 2-5 pounds bran 25 pounds shorts 5 pounds corn meal % pound salt A special effort was made to get the fowls to consume about the same amount of dry mash mixture as of scratch grain. Later in the contest, on account of the food administration’s ruling on wheat, corn was substituted, and the corn meal in the dry mash mixture eliminated. The feed situation at times was very acute, and some of the ingredients were impossible to get at any price. Under more favorable conditions it is quite probable that all of the birds would have made better records. It ought not be necessary to state here that all pens in the contest were fed the same ration and handled in the same general way. SHOW ROOM SCORES All birds in the contest were judged on the basis of the American Standard of Perfection. The Hale explanatory score card was used, because it is considered of more value to the owner of the birds, to whom all score cards are mailed. F. W. Kazmeier did the judging. Some of the birds were not in show condition. None was prepared for ex- hibition purposes. All of this‘ should be considered when studying the score. Time did not permit weighing the birds. ' Scoring was not done for the purpose of making comparisons between the egg production of high scoring and low scoring birds. The birds were scored primarily for the purpose of giving the owner an idea as to the exhibition qualities of the birds. All indications are that stand-- ard-shaped birds also are the best layers. There seems to be certain color requirements in the “Standard” that are not conducive to the best egg production. There are some disqualifications that do not appear serious enough to be so designated. These things, no doubt, will be arranged properly in time. Indications are that every effort is being made leading to a combination of utility and fancy qualities. 0 12 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. UNIDENTIFIED EGGS By unidentified eggs is meant eggs laid outside of the trap nests. They result from lack of attention, or improper working of trap nests due to the fact that some of the hens were unaccustomed to laying in such contrivances. Frequently eggs are laid during the night, many of them being broken. It is also of interest that some hens develop the habit of trying to get into and out of the trap nests without springing them. They occasionally are able to do this. Some hens refuse to use the trap nests, and prefer to lay on the floor. The unidentified eggs are counted in figuring the cost of egg production, the value of the eggs produced by each flock, and other data. i LITTER Common straw was used as litter. At times it was exceedingly hard to get a good quality. Extreme care was used not to use moldy or musty litter of any kind. Frequently the litter was disinfected to guard against any possible trouble. Special effort was made to keep the litter loose, dry, and clean. To do this, the houses were kept open as much as possible. Following are tabulations compiled from contest data: Table 1.—Best and poorest individual records. S. C. White Leghorn No. 40, 201 eggs. November . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 eggs May . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24 eggs December . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22 eggs June . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23 eggs January . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 eggs July . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16 eggs February . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16 eggs August . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 eggs March . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23 eggs September . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 eggs April . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 eggs October . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 eggs This hen laid in fall and winter. S. C. White Leghorn No. 99, 26 eggs. November . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 egg May . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 eggs December . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 eggs June . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 eggs January . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 eggs July . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o eggs February . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 egg August . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 eggs March . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 eggs September . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 eggs April . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 eggs October . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 eggs This hen laid in the spring. S. C. Rhode Island Red, No. 162, 200 eggs. November . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 eggs May . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23 eggs December . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21 eggs June . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 eggs January . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 eggs July . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16 eggs February . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23 eggs August . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 eggs March . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25 eggs September . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 eggs April . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22 eggs October . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17 eggs This hen laid $4.25 worth of eggs during the months of November, December, January, February and March. S. C. Rhode Island Red, No. 156, 29 eggs. November . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 eggs May . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 eggs December . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 eggs June . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 eggs January . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 eggs July . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 eggs February . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 eggs August . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 eggs March . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 eggs September . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 eggs April . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 eggs October . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 eggs This hen did not lay any eggs during the winter months when eggs brought a good price. FIRST TEXAS NATIONAL EGG-LAYING CONTEST. Table 2.-—Total number and value of eggs produced by contest. 13 Total No. of doz. N0. of doz. No. of doz. (dozens) Price per Total Month eggs laid in eggs laid in of uniden- produced in dozen value trap nests. trap nests tified eggs each month by Alt. 1917 November . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 8/12 9 7/12 8 10/12 100 1/12 3 0.42 3 42.035 Dt-zlcgflgber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 91 5/12 9 3/12 7 3/12 107 11/12 .52 56.113 January . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 8/12 10 2/12 7 10/12 122 8/12 .58 71.150 February . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 5/12 25 4/12 14 4/12 212 1/12 .50 106.042 March . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 35 9/12 15 307 9/12 .43 132.32 April . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 2/12 31 6/12 13 6/12 269 2/12 “.34 91.517 May . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 232 11/12 29 1/12 9 9/12 271 9/12 .32 86.96 June . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 156 17 3/12 11 8/12 184 11/12 .33 61.023 July . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 120 9/12 9 11 4/12 141 1/12 .36 50.79 August . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 80 5/12 7 3/12 12 11/12 100 7/12 .39 39.228 September . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 2 3/12 11 6/12 41 9/12 .42 17.535 October . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 5/12 5 7/ 12 2 .45 25 . 65 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1916 9/12 Av. 80.4215 $ 780.375 An average of 190 birds in the contest for the year 1917-1918. Table Zia-Monthly production of the ten best birds in the contest. No. of hen Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Total 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 16 18 13 22 23 26 21 20 18 0 0 181 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 16 12 20 29 28 16 16 4 7 3 15 187 40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 22 21 16 23 25 24 23 16 13 2 13 201 162 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 21 24 23 25 22 23 10 16 6 4 17 200 165 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 19 9 18 24 21 6 6 15 16 9 22 _ 185 129 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 19 18 15 13 16 22 15 18 13 15 9 182 176 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 25 18 24 25 24 22 1 19 13 14 20 207 175 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 13 20 18 15 27 19 16 _ 18 13 19 18 203 201 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2 0 19 23 23 18 17 18 21 19 10 181 249 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 11 15 17 22 22 19 14 20 15 14 10 182 Total, l0 . . . . . . . 97 164 155 183 221 231 195 139 164 135 99 134 1909 Table 4.—Monthly production of the ten poorest hens in the contest. No. of hen No. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Total 0 0 1 9 14 3 4 3 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 17 0 11 6 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 49 0 0 2 8 4 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 12 7 5 2 3 0 0 29 8 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 9 0 9 11 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 26 1 0 0 1 0 4 12 3 5 0 0 0 32 2 0 0 1 6 7 7 11 10 1 0 0 45 0 0 1 1 6 9 8 2 0 O 0 0 27 Total . . . . . . . . . 21 46 4 40 55 42 45 30 18 4 0 0 305 Average . . . . . . .. 2.10 4.60 .40 4.0 5.5 4.2 4.5 3.0 1.8 .4 .0 .0 30.5 14 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Table 5.—Tota1 amount and value of feed consumed, average of 190 birds in the contest. Average Total Month Wheat Corn Alfalfa Milk Dry Straw Total prlre cost of ‘7 mash No. lbs. per lb. feed 1917 November . . . . . . . . 757.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.00 279.00 333.00 1036.00 6 0.035 8 36.26 Delcgflgber . . . . . . . . . 825. 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24. 00 369. 00 . . . . . . . . . 1194.00 .035 41. 79 January . . . . . . . . . . 395.00 397.20 61.50 . . . . . . . . . 372.00 276.00 1225.70 .035 42.89 February . . . . . . . . . 661.50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413.00 226.00 1071.50 .035 37 60 Mar . . . . . . . . . . . . 155. 557.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837 . 00 358.00 1549. 25 .035 54.22 A ril . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 666.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 500 00 182.00 1166.00 .032 37.31 ay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 654. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 450.00 320.00 1104.00 .032 35.33 June . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 545.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 00 . . . . . . . .. 778.00 .032 24.89 Jul)’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 434.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325.00 . . . . . . . . . 759.00 .032 24 .29 August . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 415 . 00 460. 00 746.00 .032 23.87 September . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403. 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355.00 . . . . . . . . . 758. 00 . 032 24.26 tober . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 424.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201.75 . . . . . . . . . 625.75 .032 20.02 Total . . . . . . . .. 2793.75 4411.20 61.50 56.00 4751.00 2155.00 12017.55 . . . . . . . . . 8 401.73 Straw used for litter. Table 6.—Montb1y value of feed consumed and value of eggs produced, average of 190 birds in contest. Over cost of feed. Month Value of eggs Cost of feed Profit 1917 November . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 842.035 836.26 8 5.77 Dfitsflgbfl‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56.113 41.79 14.32 January . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.150 42.89 28.26 February . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106.042 37.60 68.44 March . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132.332 54.22 78 11 April . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 91.517 37.31 54.20 MB)’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 96 35 33 51 .63 June . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.023 24.89 36.13 July . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50. 790 24 29 26 50 August . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 .228 23.87 15 .35 September . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 . 535 24 .26 Loss 6 .73 ctober . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25. 65 20.02 5.63 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 780. 375 401. 73 $378 .64 Table 7.-—-Total score, judged according to standard requix ements. Cut for Cut for Band Number shape. color. Score Variety Total eggs Weight Total. Total. pr uc 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7% 87% S. C. W. Leghorns. . . . 187 4 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5% 6 87% “ ‘ . . . . 130 4% 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4% 4 3/8 90 7/8 " “ 116 4% 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5% 5% 89% “ “ 168 4 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5% 4 90% “ “ 105 3% 36 ......................... . . 5 614 82% “ “ 152 4 37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3% 6% 90% “ “ 123 4 .... .. 4% 7 88% “ " 109 4% 39—D1squa11fied srde apr1g.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 4% 40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4% 5% 89% “ “ 201 3% ... . ._. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4% 5% 90% “ “ 49 4 42—D1ed ID June . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5% 5% 89 “ “ 120 4% 145—Died in June . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4% 8 87% S C R. I. Reds . . . . . . 81 5 250 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ “ . . . . . . 154 5% 147 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3% 7% 89 I‘ . . . . . . 136 5 1/8 . 148...._..._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2% 9 88% ‘ . . . . .. 156 5 3/16 149—Dred 1n June . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ 4% 5 90% " “ . . . . . . 126 6 151—D1ed 1n February . . . . . . . . . . 5 8% 86% “ “ . . . . . . 1 5% 152 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4% 6% 89 “ “ . . . . . . 81 6 153 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3% 6% 90% " “ . . . . .. 146 5 1/8 154 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4% 6 89% " “ . . . . .. 127 6 155 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3% 5% 90% “ " . . . . . . 97 4 3/ 156 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4% 6% 89 1/8 " " . . . . .. 29 5 1/ Fmsrr TEXAS NATIONAL EGG-LAYING CONTEST. Table 7.—Tota1 score, iudged according to standard requirements. 15 Cut for Cut for _ Band Number shape. color. Score Varwty Total eggs Weight Total. Total. produced 4% 2% 92% S. C. W. Leghorns. . . . 80 5 3% 3% 92% " ‘j .... 131 4% 4 4 92- " I‘ 120 5% 3% 4 92% " ‘ 75 5 4 4% 91% " ' 167 4 4% 4% 90% " 136 4% 5 4% 90% “ 133 5 ............................. . . " ‘j 27 4 3% 4% 92 “ ‘ 175 4 3% 3% 93 " 104 4 6% 4% 89 “ “ 161 4% 4 3% 92% “ a 185 4 4% 4% 90% -' __ 144 4 2V 5 90y “ 181; 5 4 4% 92 4 “ ‘j 5 3% 2% 94 “ " 148 3% 4% an, 90 " i‘ 143 4 3% 4% 92% " u 11a 4% 3% 4% 91% “ “ 81 4 4% 5% 89% “ 93 4% ................................................ . . 2a 4% 5 5 9o “ j: 94 - a 4% 5% 90% " u 7a 4% 4% 7% 88 " 88 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..SCR.I.RadB--.... 169 6 4% 9% 86% “ " . . . . . . 28 7 6% 5 88% “ ‘a 101 75 3 7% 89% “ ‘ . - . . . . 81 6 4, 51f 10 84% “ “ . - . . . - 106 6 6% 1:; 81% " “ .... . . 200 6% 4% 5% 90 “ " . - . . . . 74 6% 1% 8% 89% “ “ . - . - . - 101 6% 4% 4% 91% “ “ . - . - . . 70 6 ’ 4 8 88 “ " . . . . . . 131 5h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. “ “ 101 5% 5 5% 89% “ ‘ ' . - . . . . 78 6 5% 7 87% “ " . . . . . . 152 6 5 7% 87% " " . . . ~ . . 158 6% 5 9 86 “ “ . . . . . . 143 7 2% 9% 87% “ “ . . . . . . 137 6 2 12 86 “ “ . . . . . . 145 6 4% 6 89% “ “ . . . . . . 105 6% 6 9 85 “ “ . . . . . . 131 6% 6% 8% 84% “ “ . . . . . . 176 6 5% 5% 89 “ “ . . . . . . 185 6% 4% 7 88% “ “ . . . . . . 108 6 3% 7 89% “ “ . . . . . . 144 7 4% 10% 85 " “ . . . . . . 71 7 4% 7% 88 Barred 1100b . . . . . . . . 3% 21% 5% 911;‘? “ “ . . . . . . . . 1311! 6 4 4 88 4 “ “ . . . . . . . . 6% Mil-Disqualified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ “ . . . . . . . . 157 6 132 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3% 5% 90% “ " . . . . . . . . 119 7% 175 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7% 88A “ i‘ . . . . . . . . 203 7 176 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5% 8% 86 “ “ . . . . . . . . 207 6 177——D1squalified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ " . . . . . . . . 152 7% 178—Died in January . . . . . . . . . . . 4% 8% 87 “ “ . . . . . . . . 0 7 179 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4% 8% 87% “ “ . . . . . . . . 123 7 180 . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6% 10 83% “ “ . . . . . . .. 137 8 181—Disquahfied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " “ . . . . . . . . 86 6 182 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7 87 “ “ . . . . . . . . 54 7 183 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .‘ . . . . . . . . . . 5% 10% 83% “ “ _ . , . . . . . 78 7% 184 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5% 10% 84% “ “ . . , . . . . . 96 5% 185 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7 % 86% “ “ . . . . . . . . 71 6 186. . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 9% 85% “ “ . . . . . . .. 120 5% 121—D1squal1fied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S. C. W. Leghorns. . . . 104 3% 122 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4% 88% “ “ , ._ 119 3% 123 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6% 87% “ “ 62 3% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3/3 2% gay “ “ 1g 24% .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 “ “ l26-Disqualified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ “ 105 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6 90 “ “ 99 5% ..................... .. a 6 91 " " 116 4% 75—D1squalified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ “ 64 4% 76 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4% 6 89% “ " 159 4 77 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3% 5% 91 “ “ 95 4% ~ 78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4% 6% 89% “ “ 125 4 1 6 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Table 7.—Total score, judged according to standard requirements. Cut for Cut for _ Band Number shape. color. Score Variety Total eggs Welght Total. Total. Produced 1—Died in November . . . . . . . . . 5% 51 2 89% “ “ 3 3% 2-Disqualified for down betwe en toes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. “ “ 178 3% 3 ......................... . . 4% ’ 5 90% “ " 137 3% 4 ......................... . . 5% 5% 39% “ " 109 3% 5. . . . . . ._ ................ .. 7% 4% 33 “ " 132 3% 6—D1squa.l1fied, stubs on toes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " " 135 3% 8—Died in August . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5% 89% “ " 77 3% 9 ......................... . . 5% 5% 33% “ " 123 3% 10 ......................... . . 5% 4% 33% “ " 119 3% 47 ......................... . . 5% 4 90% " " 99 3% 12 ......................... . . 3% 4 92% “ " 134 3% 11—Score card lost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ “ 107 3% 55 ......................... .. 3% 4% 92% " “ 150 3% 55 ......................... . . 5 4% 90% “ " 107 3% 57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3% 5% 91 “ " 115 3% 53 ......................... . . 2 5% 92% “ “ 35 4 59 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3% 5 91% " " 100 4% 60—Disqualified, down between toes; died i n May. . . . . . . . . . . . . “ " 195‘ - - . . - - . . . - 13 ......................... . . 5% 5% 39 “ " 113 4 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4% 5% 39% " " 152 3% 15 ....... .. ... . 5% 5 33% " " 125 3% 15.. .._ ..................... .. 4% 5% 39 “ " - 34 4 17—-D1ed in December . . . . . . . . . 5% 5% 88% “ “ 17 4 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5% 5 89% “ " - . . . 148 4 4% 5% 39% S. c. R. I. Whites. .. 173 5 _ _ 5% 3% 90% " . . 102 5 171—D1ed 1n July . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4% 4% 91% “ " 36 7% 172—Died in June . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4% 4 89% “ " 95 6 173. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5% 6 90% " " 72 4 5% 4% 90 “ “ . . . 150 6% . . 5 4 91 S. C. W. Leghorns. .. 143 3% 25 ......................... . . 5% 4% 9o ‘ " . . . 145 4 gg—gisqualified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " " §g -— ied in June . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3% 4% 92% “ “ 4 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4% 5% 90 “ “ 173 3% 30 ......................... . . 5% 5% 33% " f 153 3% 51 ......................... . . 3% 5% 39% " ‘ 129 3% 62 - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3% 3% 93 “ “ 109 4 53 ......................... .. 3% 5% 91 “ “ 72 4 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5% 37% “ “ 158 4% 55 ......................... . . 5 4% 90% “ “ 72 4% 66...,‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3% 4% 91% “ “_ 159 3% 133-—-D1ed in December . . . . . . . . . 5% 4% 90% S. C. W. Orp1ngtons.. . . . . . . . . . . 5 134 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5% 4% 90% “ “ 50 6% 135 ......................... . . 5% 3 91% " " 93 7 13? ........................ . . 5% 5% 33 “ " 51 7 l38—-Died in April . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5% 6 88% “ “ 63 6 19 ......................... .. 4% 4% 91 s. c. W.Lezh0r118 137 2% 20—Never laid an egg . . . . . . . . . 3% 3% 92% " “ - 0 3% 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4% 90% “ " 129 3% i; ......................... . . 4% 322W jj jj 1321; g5 - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 »4 24 . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ “ . 72 3% 45 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4% 6 89% S. C. Buff Leghorn. 149 4% 50 . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2% 8% 89 " " - 142 4 51 ......................... . . 4% 5% 39 “ “ 123 4% 44 . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . 4% 6% 3934 “ ‘j 93 4 43 ......................... . . 3% 3% 37% “ ‘ 83 4% 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3% 7% 88% “ “ . 111 5 109 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5% 90% S. C. W. Leghorns 123 4 HIP-Disqualified, died in Oct.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘ “ . 139 4% 11; ......................... .. 43/ 3V ....géi/... “ “ 4% 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 4 , 2 “ “ ~' 113—Disqualified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ “ 103 4 114 ......................... .. 5% 4% 90% ‘ “ 85 4% 103-4911111111 Mayj ........... .. 3% 4% 89% “ “ 101 4 104 ......................... .. 5% 5% 33% " “ 167 4% 105 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3% 4 92% " " 142 3% 105 ......................... . . 4% 5% 39% " “ 3% 108 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2% 4% 93 S- 0- W. Leshorns 96 4 115 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5% 5% 90% ‘ “ . 74 4 116—Diaqualified; down between toes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . g 118—Died in June . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4% 3% 91% " " 109 4 119 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4% 4% 90% “ “ .. 76 3% 120 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5% 6% 38% _ “ “ ---- 74 5% 199 ......................... . . 5% 3% 90% Whlle Wyandottee- . - 32 6 FIRST TEXAS NATIONAL EGG-LAYING CONTEST. 17 Table 7.—Total score, judgde according tostandard require ents. Cut for Cut for Band Number shape. color. Score Variety Total eggs Weight Total. Total. produced 249 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. “ “ 182 5 201 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 5% 88% “ “ 181 6 202 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . 5% 5% 88% " “ 145 5 203—Died in March . . . . . . . . . . . . 6% 5% 88 “ “ 48 5 204-Dred_ 1n June . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5% 41/; 90% _ _ _" “ . . . 94 4% 67—Not rn the standard . . . . . . . _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Slcrlran Buttercups. . . 62 3% 68—-Not in the standard—Died 1n Sept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ “ . . 25 4 69—Not in the standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ “ 57 4% 70—N0t in the standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ “ 50 3 71-—Not in the standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ “ 67 3% 72-—Not in the standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ “ 45 3% Table 8.-Annual egg-production. Single Comb Rhode Island Reds. Individual yearly Pen Owner Address Leg-band No. production. total L. C. Gibbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ardmore, Okla . . . . . . . . . 139-140-141-142-143 74-101- 70-131-101 477 C. M. Evans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Bryan, Texas . . . . . . . . . . 250-148-150-230-231 154-156-100- 0- 0 669 C. M. Evans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Bryan,‘ Texas . . . . . . . . .. 152-153-154-155-156 81-140-127- 97- 29 474 S. C. Riohardson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bryan, Texas . . . . . . . . . . 157-158-159-161-162 169- 35-102-106-200 612 R. L. Penick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stamford, Texas . . . . . . . . 163-164-165-166-167 131-176-185-108-144 744 R. L. Pou . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bryan, Texas . . . . . . . . .. 187-188-189-190-191 152-158-143-137-145 735 Barred Plymouth Rocks. F. W. Clark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Van Horn, Texas . . . . . . . 127-128-129-131-132 178-145-192-157-119 753 M. A. Lee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Seadrift, Texas . . . . . . . .. 175-176-177-179-180 203-207-152-123-136 822 M. W. Coll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Bryan, Texas . . . . . . . . .. 181-183-184-185-186 86- 78- 96- 71-120 451 S. C. R. I. Whites. H. E. Caldwell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. lCanutillo, Texas . . . . . . . . I 169-170-173-174—171| 173-102- 85-141- 86] 584 White Orpingtons. J. S. Hubbard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . {Fort Worth, Texas. . . . . I 134-135-136-137—138| 50- 98- 84- 61- 72| 356 White Wyandottes. Homan's Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..lYsleta, Texas . . . . . . . . . .| 199-201-202-249-204] 32-181-145-182- 941 588 S. C. Bufi Leghorns. Laura Terry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. [Copperas Cove, Texas. .I 45- 50- 51- 54- 441 151-142-123-111- 93| 618 Sicillian Buttercups. I. Freeman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|Stephenville, Texas. . .| 67- 69- 70- 71- 72| 60- 57- 50- 67- 43I 261 S. C. White Leghorns. Geo. Gray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Boerne. Texas . . . . . . . . .. 2- 3- 4- 5- 6 178-137-109-132-135 691 J A. Baker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Boerne, Texas . . . . . . . .. 9- 10- 11- 12- 47 128-119-107-134- 99 565 R. E. Sharp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cameron, Texas . . . . . . . . 13- 14- 15- 16- 18 112-152-125- 34-148 572 C. T. Knudsen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Norse, Texas... 19- 20- 21- 22- 23 137- 0-129—181— 98 545 A. F. Egger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Paris, Texas. . .. 25- 26- 30- 29- 27 143-146-163-173-163 788 C. M. Evans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Bryan, Texas. .. 31- 32- 33- 34- 35 187—130—116—168-105 706 C. M. Evans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bryan, Texas. . . . . . . . 37- 38- 39- 40- 41 123-l59-169-201- 49 711 D. C. Moore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Houston, Texas . . . . . . .. 55- 56- 57- 58- 59 160-107-115- 35-100 517 M. Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Bowre, Texas . . . . . . . . .. 61- 62- 63- 64- 65 129—109— 72-158- 62 550 Glenview Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Bryan, Texas . . . . . . . . . . 104-105-106-107-108 167-142-151-135- 96 691 J. Lawler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Bryan, Texas . . . . . . . . .. 80- 81- 83- 87- 89 131-120-167-175-161 754 J. Lawler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Bryan, Texas . . . . . . . .. 79- 82- 84- 85- 88 80- 75-136-133-104 528 J. Lawler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Bryan, Texas . . . . . . . . .. 91- 92- 93- 91- 95 144-103- 91-148-143 629 J. Lawler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Bryan, Texas . . . . . . . . .. 97- 98- 99-100-101 81- 93- 26- 94- 73 367 Eldridge Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Antonio, Texas. . . . . 109-110-111-112-113 123-139-176-132-103 663 Homan's Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ysleta, Texas . . . . . . . . . . 115-116-118-119-120 74-137-100- 75- 74 470 Dr. Hunninutt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Bryan, Texas . . . . . . . . ,. 121-122-123-124-125 101-119- 62-118- 89 492 C. H. Williams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Denton, Texas . . . . . . . .. 73- 74- 76- 77- 78 99—116—159- 95-125 594 1s Texas AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. - Table 9.-—Pen awards, entire contest. I No. eggs Awards Owner i Address Variety ver Year I l ‘ l First . . . . . . . . . . . M. A. Lee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Seadrift, Texas . . . . . . . . . .. Barred Rocks . . . . . . . . . . .. 822 Second . . . . . . . . . A. F. Egger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IParis, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . S. C. W. Leghorns . . . . . . . . 788 Third . . . . . . . . .. Jordan Lawler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bryan, Texas . . . . . . . . . . .. S. C. W. Leghorns . . . . . . .. 754 Fourth . . . . . . . . . F. W. Clark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Van Horn, Texas . . . . . . . . Barred Rocks . . . . . . . . . . . . 753 Fifth . . . . . . . . . . . R. L. Peuick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stamford. Texas . . . . . . . . . . S. C. R. I. Reds . . . . . . . . . . 744 Sixth . . . . . . . . . .. R. L. Pou . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Bryan, Texas . . . . . . . . . . .. S. C. R. I. Reds . . . . . . . . .. 735 Seventh . . . . . . . . C. M. Evans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bryan, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . S. C. W. Leghorns . . . . . . . . 711 ‘ghth . . . . . . . . . C._M. Evans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bryan, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . S. C. W. Leghorns . . . . . . . . 706 Table IOr-Individual awards, entire contest. First . . . . . . . . . .. M. A. Lee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Seadrift, Texas . . . . . . . . . .. Barred Rocks . . . . . . . . . . .. 207 Second . . . . . . . .. M. A. Lee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Seadrift, Texas . . . . . . . . . .. Parred Rorks . . . . . . . . . . .. 203 Third . . . . . . . . . . C. M. Evans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Bryan, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . S. C. W. Lephorns . . . . . . .. 201 Fourth . . . . . . . . . S. C. Richardson . . . . . . . . . . . .. Bryan, Texas . . . . . . . . . . .. S. C. R. I. Reds . . . . . . . . .. 200 Fifth . . . . . . . . . .. C. M. Evans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Bryan, Texas . . . . . . . . . . .. S. C. W. Ierliorns . . . . . . .. 187 Sixth . . . . . . . . . .. R. L. Penirk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Stamford . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. S. C. R. l Reds . . . . . . . . .. 185 Seventh . . . . . . . . Jordan Lawler . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Bryan, Texas . . . . . . . . . . .. S. C. W. Lephorns . . . . . . .. 185 Eighth . . . . . . . .. F. W. Clark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Van Horn, Texas . . . . . . . .. Barred Rorks . . . . . . . . . . .. 182 ~ Ninth . . . . . . . . .. Homan's Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Ysleta, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . White Wyandotte . . . . . . .. 181 Tenth . . . . . . . . .. Knudson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Norse, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . S. C. W. Leghorns . . . . . . . . 181 _ Table 11.— Pen awards, entire year, American class. First . . . . . . . . . .. M. A. Lee. . .. . . . . . . . . . .. Seadrift, Texas . . . . . . . . . .. BarredRorks . . . . . . . . . . .. 822 .. Van Horn, Texas.. ... Befffd otks . . . . . . . . . .. 763 ' . . . . .. Stamford, Texas . . . . . . . . .. i‘. l . R. 1. Reds . . . . . . . . .. 744 Fourth . . . . . . . . . R. L. Pou . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Br) an, Texas . . . . . . . . . . S. C. R. I. Reds . . . . . . . . . . 735 Table 12.-—Pen awards, entire year, S. C. R. I. Reds. First . . . . . . . . . .. R. L. Penick; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Stamford. Texas . . . . . . . . .. S. C. R. I. Reds . . . . . . . . .. 744 Second . . . . . . . .. R. L. Pou . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Bryan, Texas . . . . . . . . . . .. S. C. R. I. Rcds . . . . . . . . .. 735 Third . . . . . . . . . . C. M. Evans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Bryan, Texas . . . . . . . . . . .. S. C. R. 1. Reds . . . . . . . . .. 669 Table 13.—-Pen awards, entire year, Barred Rocks. First . . . . . . . . . ..M.A.I.ee...................Seadrift,'l"exas...........ParredRocks... . . . . . . . 822 Second. . . . . . . . . F. W. Clark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Van Born, Texas . . . . . . . .. Barredjiocks . . . . . . . . . . .. 753 Table 14.—Pen awards, entire year, MediterraneanEcIass. First . . . . . . . . . .. A. F. Egger. . . J . . . . . . . . . .. Paris, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . IS. C. W. Leghorns . . . . . . . . v 788 Second . . . . . . . .. Jordon Lawler . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Bryan, Texas . . . . . . . . . . .. S. C. W. Leghorns..." . .. 754 Third . . . . . . . . . . C. M. Evans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Bryan, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . S. C. W. Leghorns . . . . . . . . 711 Fourth . . . . . . . .. C. M. Evans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Bryan. Texas . . . . . . . . . . .. S. C. W. Leghorns . . . . . . .. 706 Fifth . . . . . . . . . . . Geo. Cray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Boerne, Texas . . . . . . . . . . .. S. C. W. leslorns . . . . . . .. 691 Sixth... . . . . . . .. Glenvrew Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Bryan, Texas . . . . . . . . . . .. S. C. W. Ieghorns . . . . . . .. 691 Sew enth . . . . . . . . Eldridge Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Antonio, Texas . . . . . . . S. C. W. Leghorns . . . . . . . . 663 Table 15.—Pen awards, entire year, Legborns. (Same places as in awards for Mediterranean class.) Table 16.-—Individual awards, entire year, Mediterranean class. First... . . . . . . .. C. M. Evans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Bryan, Texas . . . . . . . . . . .. S. C. Ieghorns . . . . . . .. 201 Second . . . . . . . .. C. M. Ex ans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Bryan, Texas . . . . . . . . . . .. S. C. Vi. eghorns . . . . . . .. 187 Third . . . . . . . . .. Jordan Lawler . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Er} an, Texas . . . . . . . . . . .. S. C. Vt. Leg-l orns . . . . . . .. 185 Fourth . . . . . . . .. C. T. Kundson . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. horse, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . .. S. C. Vi. leghorns . . . . . .. 181 Fifth... . . . . . . .. Ceo. Cray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Fcerne. Texas. . . . .. . . . .. S. C. W. Leghorns . . . . .. 178 Sixth . . . . . . . . . .. Eldridge Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. San Antonio, Texas . . . . . . . S. C. W. Leghorns . . . . . . . . 176 Table 17.—- Individual awards, entire year, Leghorns. (Same places as in awards for entire year in Mediterranean class.) Table 18.——Individual awards, entire year, American class. First“ . . . . . . . . . iM. A. lee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. lSeadritt, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . IParred Rorks . . . . . . . . . . . .J 207 Second . . . . . . . .. M. A. Lee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lSeadnft, Texas . . . . . . . . . .. Barred Rorks . . . . . . . . . . .. i Third. . . S. C. Ruliardson . . . . . . . . . .. lBryan, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . ,5. C. R. 1. Reds . . . . . . . . .. 2C0 Fourth .. .. R. L. Penuk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..§S‘tan1ford,Texas . . . . . . . . . . 5S. C. R. l. Reds . . . . . . . . .. 183 Fifth. . . . . ,F. W. Clark. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . flan Horn, Texas . . . . . . . . . iEarred Rocks . . . . . . . . . . .. 182 Frnstr TEXAS NATIONAL EGG-LAYING CONTEST. 19 Table 19.—Individual awards, entire year, S. C. R. I. Reds. us. eggs Awards Owner. Address Variety per year first. . . . .. . . . . . S. C. Richardson . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brvan. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . S. C. R. I. Reds . . . . . . . . .. 200 Second . . . . . . . . . R. L. Penick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stamford, Texas . . . . . . . . . . S. C. R. I. Reds . . . . . . . . . . 185 Third . . . . . . . . . . R. L. Penick. . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stamford, Texas . . . . . . . . . . S. C. R. I. Reds . . . . . . . . . . 176 Table 20.—Individual awards, entire year, Barred Rocks. First . . . . . . . . . . . M. A. Lee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Seadrift, Texas . . . . . . . . . .. Barred Rocks . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 Second . . . . . . . .. M. A. Lee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Seadrift. Texas . . . . . . . . . .. Barred Rocks . . . . . . . . . . .. 203 Third . . . . . . . . .. F. W. Clark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Van Horn, Texas . . . . . . . .. Barred Rocks . . . . . . . . . . .. 182 CORRELATION OF FEED CONSUMPTION AND EGG PRODUCTION Tables 5 and 6 clearly show the correlation of the feed consumption with the egg production. During the month of March the birds con- sumed the most feed and produced the greatest number of eggs. It took approximately 150 pounds of feed to produce thirty dozen, or one case of eggs. In April it took about 130 pounds of feed to produce thirty dozen eggs. In May it took 122 pounds of feed to produce thirty dozen eggs. In June, July, August, September, and October the birds consumed the smallest amount of feed and also produced the least number of eggs. In February, March, April, and May the birds consumed the greatest amount of feed and produced the largest number of eggs. From this it may safely be concluded that during the period of heav- iest feed consumption there is also the greatest egg production. PERIOD OF PRODUCTION Figure 6 shows that there were approximately 16g- eggs produced per hen in March, 14 in April, 11 in February, 14% in May, 9% in June, 71', in July, 51} in August, 2% in September, 3 in Ootober, 5% in Novem- ber, 55} in December, and 6% in January. MARKETING THE PRODUCT The eggs were marketed in Bryan for whatever was the current price. In many places, near some of the larger cities, a higher price could have been obtained. For this reason, the profit over cost of feed, as shown in a foregoing table, is no more than can be expected from the average farm flock when given intelligent care and systematic management. BROODINESS It wasifound that the S. C. Rhode Island Reds showed the highest number of broody birds. The Barred Plymouth Rocks came next. The Leghorns seldom become broody. ' DISQUALIFIED BIRDS There were sixteen birds disqualified out of a total of 192. By far the greatest number of disqualifications were because of down, feathers, 2O TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIoN. 0r stubs 0n shanks, toes or between toes. A few were disqualified on account of side sprigs on the comb. I NUMBER OF EGGS. 12 1 4iS 6 7 8!9 1011 12y13£14l516171819 20 2122 23 24 25 26.27 FIGURE 4—MONTHLY PRODUCTION OF TEN BEST PULLETS NUMBER OF EGGS ' I 12 3 4iS 6 7 SP9 1011121314lSt1617l819 2O 2122 2324 25 Z6??? | I MIG. 1 l gwln- y . ucr. l FIGURE 5———AVERAGE MONTHLY PRODUCTION OF TEN POOREST PULLETS It is clearly evident that it is possible t0 breed for both egg produc- tion and exhibition purposes. To advocate anything else would be the greatest mistake. It is also clear that egg production may be bred into any breed or variety, and that it is not confined to any particular breed. The primary benefit oi’ the egg-laying contest is the encouragement it gives to the breeding of poultry for increased egg production. No doubt the time is not far away when one may expect to see many such contests in the various parts of the State. 1n fact, it is not unreason- able to expect that egg-laying competitions will be held in connection with many of the county poultry shows. Schools teaching agriculture ‘will find them interesting. Fmsr TEXAS NATIONAL EGG-LAYING CONTEST. 21 BREED FOR WINTER EGG PRODUCTION Studying the yearly egg records shows that the high producers lay in the fall and Winter, when eggs are worth more than in the spring and summer. The good layers have two advantages: the larger number of eggs, and the increased value oi‘ the eggs, due to the fact that they are laid when they are worth the most. The average price of eggs for the six fall and winter months—October, November, December, January, February, and March——was forty-eight cents per dozen. The average price of eggs for the six spring and summer months was thirty-six cents per dozen. This year (1919) the price of eggs is much higher than foregoing quotations. The ten best hens in the contest averaged ninety-five eggs during the six fall and winter months, an amount worth $3.80. The ten poorest | NUMBER or EGGS l 12:3 4 5i6 7 8:9 1011 12 131415 16171819202122 2324 252627 us. am. m. t FIGURE 6—-AVERAGE MONTHLY PRODUCTION OF EGGS FOR ENTIRE CONTEST hens in the contest averaged sixteen and one-half eggs during the six fall and winter months, an amount worth sixty-six cents. The ten best hens averaged ninety-six eggs during the six spring and summer months, an amount worth $2.88. The ten poorest hens aver- aged fourteen eggs during the six spring and summer months, an amount. worth forty-two cents. From the foregoing it may be learned that the ten best hens aver- aged about as many eggs in the winter as in the summer months, but their winter egg production was worth $1.00 more per bird, on account of the increased price. The good producers lajyed in October and November. The average October monthly production for the ten best birds was 13.4 eggs per bird. The average October monthly production for the ten poorest hens was 0. Practically all of the good layers commenced their productive- ness in November. The average production per hen per year for the entire contest was 121 eggs. This is not a particularly good record, but when one con- 22 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. siders that this was the first contest ever held in Texas and that at times it was impossible t0 get feed at any price, the records are about as good as could be expected. There is no question that the average yearly production, under more favorable conditions, would have been increased at least twenty eggs per bird. COST OF PRODUCING EGGS The feed consumption averaged‘ 5% pounds in every dozen eggs. It cost an average price of twenty-two cents for feed to produce this num- ber of eggs. The eggs sold for an average price of forty-two cents. The feed consumption averaged three and one-half pounds for the production of every pound of eggs. ' WEIGHT OF THE BIRDS The total weight of all birds in the contest was 846 pounds, or an average of four and one-half pounds. The birds in the contest pro- duced‘ three and one-half times their own live weight in eggs. They weighed 846 pounds and produced 2880 pounds of marketable eggs. They produced an average of fifteen and one-sixth pounds of eggs per bird. SUMMARY OF THE FIRST CONTEST There were 160 birds entered in the first Texas National Egg-Laying Contest. Counting alternates, there were 192 birds in the contest. Dry mash consumption amounted to 4751 pounds. Grain consumption airounted to 7205 pounds. A. total ‘of $401.73 worth of feed was productive o-f $780.37 worth of eggs. There were 2880 pounds of eggs laid. Profit over cost of feed amounted to $378.64. ANNOUNCEMENT OF A SECOND CONTEST At the annual meeting of the Texas Poultry Raisers’ Association at College Station, July, 1918, the members expressed hearty approval of the success of the first contest, and were unanimously in favor of a second contest. The following contest committee was elected for a term of one year: F. W. Kazmeier, chairman; D. C. Moore, Houston: R. E. Caldwell, Canutillo; George Gray, Boerne; Lilian Hazle, College Station. The association re-elected F. W. Kazmeier as director. One new house has been built for use of the second contest. This brief review brings the history of the Texas National Egg-Laying Con- test up to date.