1082 



EXPERIMENT STATION RECORD. 



No. 2 the figures quoted represent the average of 2 trials, in all other cases of 3 trials, 

 with lots contahiing 12 chickens each: 



Comparative merits of grain, rations for chickens. 



Rations. 



Ration No. 1: Corn meal, shorts, pearl oat dust, ani- 

 mal meal, 5 : 4 : 1 ; 1 



Ration No. 2: Corn meal, ground buckwheat, pearl 

 oat dust, 2 : 2 : 1 



Ration No. 3: Corn meal, ground buckwheat, pearl 

 oat dust, 2:1:1 



Ration No. 4: Corn meal, pearl oat dust, 2:1 



Ration No. 5: Pearl oat dust 



Average 

 weight of 



lot at 

 beginning. 



Pounds. 



47 



48.3 



47.5 



48 



48.2 



Total gain 

 in two 

 weeks. 



Pounds. 



11.5 



15.8 



11.7 



9.3 



12.8 



Grain 

 eaten per 

 pound of 



gain, a 



Pounds. 



3.3 



2.6 



3.4 

 4.3 

 3.0 



Cost of a 



pound of 



gain. 



Cents. 



3.91 



3.46 



4.61 

 6.75 



4.84 



a In every case an amount of milk j>ractieally equal to the grain was also eaten. 



According to the author, ration No. 1 was economical, but it was objectionable 

 since it had a tendency to produce yellow flesh, which is regarded as undesirable in 

 the best local markets. Ration No. 2 was regarded as the most palatable and pro- 

 duced fine, white flesh at a moderate cost. Ration No. 3 was similar to No. 2, except 

 that it contained more corn meal and hence was less suitable for warm weather. The 

 author notes that it produced a somewhat cream-colored flesh. Ration No. 4 was 

 regarded as the least satisfactory of all. On account of the excess of corn it was not 

 palatable and was undesirable for warm-weather feeding. When oats are moderate 

 in price, ration No. 5 is regarded as satisfactory. 



Tests were also made with chickens of different weights to learn the comparative 

 merits of different methods of feeding. Each lot contained 12 chickens, the average 

 weight of the chickens in the different lots ranging from 2.75 to 4.33 lbs. at tiie l)egin- 

 ning of the trial. In 24 days the greatest gain, 22.75 lbs., was made by the lot fed in 

 fattening crates for 2 weeks from a trougli and for 10 days with a cramming machine. 

 These chickens averaged 4.33 lbs. each at the beginning of the trial. The cost of a 

 pound of gain was 5.68 cts. and the selling price 11 cts. per pound. The smallest 

 gain, 9.75 cts., was made by the lot fed in a pen, each chicken having a floor space 

 of about 5 sq. ft. The average weight of the chickens in this lot at the beginning of 

 the trial was 2.75 lbs., the cost of a pound of gain 7.78 cts., and the selling price 9 cts. 

 per pound. Considering the results as a whole, the author concludes that chickens 

 weighing 3.5 lbs. are most desirable for fattening purposes; that the practice of fat- 

 tening in crates is to be commended, and that by using a cramming machine a 

 chicken can be finished and given a finer appearance when dressed than when fed in 

 the ordinary way. 



"It was also shown that the crated birds, and those fed by the machine in addition, 

 were far more profitable than those fed loose. Some experiments have also been 

 conducted where a supply of roots was added to the grain ration. The results thus 

 far obtained seem to indicate that there is no advantage in feeding roots. Potatoes, 

 however, give an extra amount of gain in flesh, and at a moderate cost may be 

 regarded as an economical food." 



Brief statements are made concerning the ducks raised during the year. When 

 10 weeks old Pekin ducks dressed 5.5 lbs., Rouens 4.5 lbs., and Indian Runners 4 

 lbs. According to the author the Pekin ducks gain more rapidly than the others. 

 The Rouen ducks are as large when mature, but grow more slowly. The Indian 

 Runner ducks are a small breed, but lay remarkably well. A test was briefly 

 reported on forcing young ducks from the seventh to the tenth week by feeding them 

 with a cramming machine. According to the author this showed that a "duck will 



