The Cause of "Apoplexy " in Winter-Fed Lambs 



43 



Table io. Total gain of lambs, December 15TH to April 3D, no 



DAYS 



In working out the total nutrients, the fat is muItipHed by 2^4 before 

 being added to the protein and carbohydrates in order to put all the con- 

 stituents on an approximately equal basis. 



The nutritive ratio of the rations fed was wider than planned, but 

 the relative difference between the wide and the narrow rations was ap- 

 proximately as planned. (Tables i, 2, 3, 4.) 



The weights of each lot, the average of each lot on December 15th and 

 April 3d, the total gain and the average gain for each lamb, and the cost 

 of I pound of gain for each lot, are given in Table 10. 



We can now discuss the advantages of narrow rations over wide ra- 

 tions, both with and without succulence in the ration. 



narrow versus wide rations 



I. With silage for succulence. — Under this head Lot D may be com- 

 pared with Lot A. On December 15th the lambs in Lot D averaged 57.3 

 pounds per lamb. On April 3d they averaged 82.4 pounds per lamb, a 

 gain per lamb for Lot D of 25.1 pounds. This gain cost 096 per pound 

 with a ration having a nutritive ratio of i :5.3. (Tables 9, 10.) On 

 December 15th Lot A averaged 56.2 pounds per lamb. On April 3d 

 the average weight was 78.9 pounds per lamb, a gain of 22.7 pounds per 

 lamb for Lot A. The cost per pound of gain in Lot A was .106 with a 

 ration having a nutritive ratio of i :8.4. (Tables 6, 10.) 



From the above we must conclude that the ration with a nutritive 

 ratio of i :5.3 was more effective than the one with a nutritive ratio of 

 1 :8.4. The amount of total nutrients fed Lot D per lamb for the 1 10 

 days was 182.63. (Table 9.) The amount of total nutrients fed Lot 

 A per lamb for no days was 182.17. (Table 6.) Therefore the better 

 gain at a less cost per pound, as shown above, must be attributed to the 

 protein in the ration fed Lot D in excess of the protein in the ration fed 

 Lot A. 



