No. 6. 



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



229 



3 required a triile less food to produce a pound of gain than Lot 

 No. 1. It is also shown that Lot No. 3 consumed less food per 

 thousand pounds of live weight than either of the other two lots. 



The dillerences in the results of these two methods of feeding, as 

 shown by these trials, are not sufficient to warrant delinite coiic'u- 

 sions. 



Experiment No. 3. 



On April 1, 1901, six steers were placed on experiment similar to 

 the one previously described. The main object of this experiment, 

 however, was to determine whether there was a great difference 

 in the retention and preservation of the maoure made from the 

 three lots. The steers were weighed at the beginning and end of 

 the experiment, as described in experiment No. 1, and the food 

 was weighed and fed as described in that experiment. Each lot 

 consisted of two steers. The steers of Lot No. 1 were loose in 

 a box stall and supplied with water by meaos of an automatic 

 watering basin. The steers of Lot No. 2 were confined in stalls,, 

 but supplied with water by automatic watering basins, and Lot No. 

 3 was watered as were the animals of Lot No. 3 of experiment No. 2. 

 The following table gives the w-eights of the steers at the beginning 

 and end of the experiment, gain per cent, and gain per day in pounds: 





o 





O 



Lot I. 



Steer No. 1 



Steer No. 2 



Average 



Lot II. 



Steer No. 3, 



Steer No. 4, 



Average, 



Lot III. 



Steer No. 5, 



Steer No. 6, 



Average, 



a 

 o 



0. 



d 



d 

 O 



c 

 o 



•a 



C 

 O 



2.99 

 2.46 

 2.71 



2.61 

 8.23 

 2.92 



3.04 

 2.37 

 2.70 



It will be observed that Lot No. 2 made a slightly greater gain than 

 either of the other lots. Lots Nos. 1 and 3 were practically the 

 same. The following table gives the food consumed for each lot. It 

 should be noted that the coarse fodder fed these three lots consisted 

 entirely of hay. While the gain of these steers in live weight cor- 

 responds quite closely to that of experiment No. 1, yet it is shown 

 below that Lot No. 3 consumed considerably less food per pound of 

 gain of live weight than either of the other two lots: 



