. Canadian journal of agricultural science. Agricultural Institute of Canada; Agriculture. February, 1921. SCIENTIFIC AGRICULTURE. 65 between pehac bones. TMs expression correlated to evidence all points to the conclusion that this egg production is shown in table 5. T^iere is a deci- "system" is not a satisfactory method of. predicting dedly significant correlation but when compared with a bird'.s production. the other coefficients of correlation in table 5, there For the present experiment, abdominal measure- is no advantage in working this out for use in selecting ments were chang
. Canadian journal of agricultural science. Agricultural Institute of Canada; Agriculture. February, 1921. SCIENTIFIC AGRICULTURE. 65 between pehac bones. TMs expression correlated to evidence all points to the conclusion that this egg production is shown in table 5. T^iere is a deci- "system" is not a satisfactory method of. predicting dedly significant correlation but when compared with a bird'.s production. the other coefficients of correlation in table 5, there For the present experiment, abdominal measure- is no advantage in working this out for use in selecting ments were changed to a "finger" classification on birds for production, as the original measurements the following ba-sLs: cm = 1 finger; em give a higher correlation than the expression in which = 2 finger; em = 3 finger; "over 6 em ^ they are combined. 4 fingers. Condition of birds as heretofore considered THE HOGAX "SYSTEM". — The Hogan "sj-s- was used for the following: Hogan classification, 2 = tem" is intended primarily to serve as a means of 1 (Hogan); 3 = 2; 4 and 5 = 3. When no allow- prcdicting the egg production of a hen or a pullet, anee was made for condition, the coefficient of cor- In the present experiment, it was, of course, impos- relation for expected to actual production was .1481 sible to use it for this purpose, but the data taken ±.0394. There is a small correlation shown, but less could be used to find out whether there was any re- t,han the correlation between abdomen and eg^ pro- lation between the expected production as based on duction as shown in table 3. In other words, com- this "system" and the actual production of the bining thickness of pelvis with si^e of abdomen is birds. a disadvantage .so far as showing relationship to pro- Whitaker (9) reports a trial of this so called "sj-s- duction goes. It is well to note in this connection tem" in which ilr. Hogan predicted the number
Size: 2108px × 1185px
Photo credit: © Book Worm / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookleafnumber77, booksponsoruniversityo, booksubjectagriculture
