ANIMAL PEODUCTIOjy. 981 



effected by grinding the corn in 7 cases and in 2 cases there has been a Iosh. The 

 greatest saving was 17.6 and the least 6 i)er cent. The greatest loss was 9 per cent 

 and the least 2 per cent. According to the author, these figures do not take into 

 account the cost of grinding, but are based entirely upon gains or losses in weight. 



The feeding value of rape for swine, W. L. Carlyle ( Wiscomin Sta. Rpt. 1901, 

 pp. .5.9-57).— Using 2 h)ts of 17 pigs each, the feeding value of rape was studied. Lot 

 1 was fed corn meal and shorts only ad libiiion, while lot 2 was hurdled on rape and 

 fed the same grain in addition. At the beginning of the trial all the pigs weighed 

 on an average about 59 lbs. each. The average daily gain per pig without rape was 

 0.85 lb. and with rape 1.06 lbs. The grain eaten per pound of gain was 4.37 and 

 4.20 lbs., respectively. The corresponding cost of feed per pound of gain was 3.78 

 and 3.36 cts. From this and earlier tests at the station (E. S. R., 13, p. 80), a num- 

 ber of general conclusions are drawn, of which the more important follow: "When 

 properly grown, an acre of rape combined with corn and shorts has a feeding value 

 for pigs 4 to 10 months old equivalent to 2,436 lbs. of the mixed grain and is worth 

 ^19.49 per acre. As a feed for growing pigs rape is superior to clover pasturage. 

 Pigs are more thrifty, have better appetites, and make correspondingly greater gains 

 when pastured on rape in conjunction with a grain ration than when fed on grain 

 alone. "Rape is the most satisfactory and cheapest green feed for swine that we 

 have fed. . . . Hogs should not be turned upon a rape pasture until the plants are 

 at least 12 to 14 in. high and . . . they should be prevented from rooting while in the 

 rape field. Rape is not a satisfactory feed when fed alone, when it is desired to have 

 any live-weight gain made in hogs, though it has been found that they will just 

 about maintain themselves without loss of weight on this feed alone. 



Our saddle horses, A. Bruce {Agr. Gaz. Xew South Wales, 12 {1901), Xo. 12, pp. 

 1563-1588, ph. 2). — The local horse-breeding industry is discussed and suggestions 

 for improvement given. 



Poultry experiments in 1900-1901, G. M. Gowell (Maine Sta. Bid. 79, pip. 

 9-40). — A number of questions connected with poultry fee<ling were investigated. 



Coops vs. house and yard (pp. 9-17). — Continuing previous work (E. S. R., 12, p. 

 585), 4 tests are reported on the comparative merits of feeding chickens in yards and 

 in small coops, as has been recommended by French and English, and later by 

 Canadian poultrymen. In the first test 20 Plymouth Rock chickens 95 days old were 

 fed in small coops a porridge of corn meal and wheat middlings and meat meal (5:5:2) 

 mixed with water for 28 days, gaining on an average a total of 1.34 lbs. A pound of 

 gain required 8.92 lbs. of feed. Sixty-eight chickens of the same age, kept in a small 

 house with a small yard and fed the same ration, made an average gain of 1.43 lbs., 

 recjuiring 5.26 lbs. of feed per pound of gain. In the second test the experimental 

 conditions were the same, except that the ration was mixed with skim milk instead 

 of water, the amount of meat meal being correspondingly diminished. The chickens 

 in coops gained on an average 1.68 lbs., requiring on an average 6.85 lbs. of feed per 

 pound of gain. Similar values for chickens fed in coops were 1.713 and 4.03. These 

 tests were repeated with chickens 160 days old at the beginning of the trial. On the 

 ration mixed with water, the chickens fed in coops gained an average of 0.78 lb. 

 each, requiring 9.74 lbs. per pound of gain, while those fed in yards gained on an 

 average 0.45 lb., each requiring 16.87 lbs. of feed per pound of gain. On the same 

 ration mixed with skim milk the average gain of the chickens fed in coops was 0.875 

 lb., the feed required per pound being 8.22. Similar values for the chickens fed in 

 yards were 0.932 lb. and 7.63 lbs. According to the author, these results and those 

 previously obtained show that close cooping is not necessary in order to secure the 

 greatest gain in chicken fattening, an<l that the chickens made greater gains when 

 given a little liberty than when kept in close confinement. The labor involved in 



