44 Bulletin 305 



2. Without succulence. — To compare a narrow with a wide ration 

 without succulence, Lot C may be compared with Lot li. The lambs in 

 Lot C averaged 56.4 pounds on December 15th. On April 3d they 

 weighed an average of 75.3 pounds, a gain of 18.9 pounds per lamb. 

 This gain cost .132 per pound with a ration having a nutritive ratio of 

 I :5.2. (Tables 8, 10.) Lot B averaged 55.5 pounds per lamb on De- 

 cember 15th, and 71.2 pounds per lamb on April 3d, a gain of 15.7 

 pounds per lamb. This gain cost .159 per pound with a ration having 

 a nutritive ratio of i :8.3, (Tables 7, 10.) 



Again the better and cheaper gain was made^ with the narrow ration. 

 Lot C was fed 183.77 pounds of total nutrients per lamb in the ito days; 

 Lot B, 183.93 pounds of total nutrients in the same time. Therefore, 

 as with Lot D above, the better and cheaper gains must have been due 

 largely to the greater amount of protein in the ration fed Lot C. 



THE VALUE OF SUCCULENCE IN THE RATION 



Two good comparisons are possible to show the value of succulence 

 in the ration. Lot A was fed a wide ration with silage for succulent 

 food, and Lot B a wide ration without silage. Lot D was fed a narrow 

 ration with silage, and Lot C a narron^ ration without silage. 



Comparing Lot A with Lot B, we see that the lambs in Lot A made 

 an average gain of 22.7 pounds at a cost of .106 per pound. The lambs 

 in Lot B made an average gain of 15.7 pounds at a cost of .159 per 

 pound. The nutritive ratio of Lot A's ration was i :8.4 ; that of Lot B 

 was 1 :8.3. Lot A was fed 182.17 pounds of total nutrients per Iamb in 

 the no days; Lot B, 183.93 pounds. (Tables 6, 7, 10.) 



Comparing Lot D with Lot C, the result is the same. Lot D received 

 a narrow ration with silage. The average gain for Lot D was 25.1 

 pounds at a cost of .096 per pound. Lot C received a narrow ration 

 without silage. The average gain for the lambs in Lot C was 18.9 

 pounds at a cost of .132 per pound. The nutritive ratio of Lot D's 

 ration was i -.$.7,, and that of Lot C was i :5.2. Lot D received 182.63 

 pounds of total nutrients per lamb in no days, and Lot C 183.77 pounds. 

 (Tables 8, 9, 10.) 



From these comparisons we must conclude that the silage was a great 

 advantage, both in the wide and in the narrow ration. The amount of 

 total nutrients fed per lamb was practically the same in every case. 

 The advantage was clearly with the narrow ration with silage over the 

 narrow ration without silage, and with the wide ration with silage over 

 the wide ration without silage. 



NOTES ON *' APOPLEXY " 



No cases of " apoplexy " occurred in the Cornell Experiment from 

 over-feeding or from the feeding of narrow rations, either during the 



