62 Report of the Department of Animal Husbandry of the 



relative efficiency and economy of the rations. 



From the first the ration containing the large proportion of ani- 

 mal food gave much the better results, although during the first 

 week not so much difference was manifest. The grain mixture 

 No. 2, of the contrasted ration, appeared to be much less palatable 

 to the ducklings than to the chicks, and to lessen this disadvantage 

 corn meal was quite freely used at the beginning with the skim 

 milk and curd. 



During the first ten weeks two and one-third times as much food 

 was eaten by Lot A as by Lot B and the total increase in live 

 weight was about four times as great. One pound gain was made 

 by Lot A for every 3.1 lbs. of water-free food consumed and one 

 pound gain by Lot B for every 5.2 lbs. of water-free food. The 

 cost of food for each pound gain was about 3.7 cents for Lot A and 

 7.SJ centf for Lot B, a difference not far from 95 per cent in favor 

 of Lot A. The use of the animal meal increased the cost of the 

 one ration, for while it constituted less than one-fifth the cost of 

 total fcod beside the alfalfa it represented considerably over one- 

 third of the total cost of the ration. 



"While the ducklings in Lot A were thrifty from the start, at all 

 times free from disease and made an even flock, those in Lot B 

 made an uneven growth and several died. The unevenness of size 

 in the flock was very noticeable. At ten weeks of age the birds in 

 Lot A seemed to have reached the limit of most profitable growth, 

 for during the next five weeks the growth was slow and growth at 

 the same rate could not generally show a profit over the cost of 

 food. The dry matter in the food eaten was about one ounce per 

 day for each pound live weight fed, a much lower rate than before. 

 The dry matter in the food eaten by Lot B during this time was 

 1.67 ozs. per pound live weight fed, although the amount per fowl 

 was, as before, less than for Lot A. The gain in weight made by 

 Lot JH was somewhat the greater and was made at less cost for 

 food. 



The slow growth made by Lot B for so long a time (during 15 

 weeks) did not prevent a more rapid gain being made when the 

 ration- was more favorable. This is shown by the results of feed- 



