"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" I will leave the last without comment, for the whole thing is a hoax. The Illinois Experiment Station has never owned a chicken. These "Illinois" experiments were planned and executed in a few minutes of the writer's spare time. The basis of the experiments was a pack of cards containing the individual records of the Maine Experiment Station hens, shuffling the cards and averaging the desired number of records as they come in the pack, made the distinction between the various diets. Experimental Bias. Pet ideas consciously or unconsciously mold practice. A bias toward an idea may show itself in the planning and conducting of an experiment, or it may come out in the later interpretation. An illustration of the first kind is found in the early work of the West Virginia Station (Bulletin 60). With the preconceived notion that hens should have a nitrogenous diet an experiment was planned and conducted as follows: One lot of hens was fed corn, potatoes, oats and corn meal. A contrasted lot reveled in corn, potatoes, hominy feed, oat meal, corn meal and fresh cut bone. The results were in favor of the latter ration by a doubled egg yield. To any experienced poultryman the reason is evident. The variety of the diet and the meat food are what made the showing. About the same time the Massachusetts Station planned a similar experiment. The bias was the same, but it took a fairer form. The hens were both given a decent variety of food and some form of meat. The bulk of the grain was corn in the carbonaceous, and wheat in the nitrogenous ration. The results were in favor of the corn. This astonished the experimenter. He tried it again and again tests came out in favor of corn. At last the old theory was revoked, and the fallacy of wheat being essential to egg production was exploded. If by an irony of fate in the shuffling of the hens, the wheat pen had the first time showed an advantage, the experimenter might have been satisfied and the waste of feeding high priced feed when a better and a cheaper is at hand, might have gone on indefinitely.