ANIMAL PRODUCTION. 575 



Cattle feeding experiments in Britain. IT. Tnci.k iTnnis. llifiJiIrnxl mxl .\<ir. 

 Soc. Scot., 0. so:, 22 (U>IO), />/). UiS-ll'l, pun. .\). — A (liseussion of datii pre- 

 viously noted (E. S. R., 21, p. 370). 



On an averajre from 0.8 to 1 lb. digestible proteids per 1,000 lbs. live weight 

 a day was sufficient for the needs of a fattening bullock. Larger amounts in- 

 volved unnecessary expense, ('►ther conclusions reiiched were the following : 

 "The more carbohydrates, fiber, and fat an animal CiUi be induced to eat up to 

 a maximum of 15 or 16 lbs. (when expressed in terms of starch) iier 1,000 lbs. 

 live weight, the more rapid will be the process of fattening and a daily increase 

 of about l.S lbs. per 1,000 lbs. live weight may then be reasonably expected." 



" The deductions as to the most successful quantities of the various food- 

 stuffs to be used in compounding rations for fattening cattle are not so sharply 

 and clearly marked as those drawn from the consideration of sheep feeding 

 trials." 



Mexican bulls fed on English walnuts, A. Shanklin (Daily Cons, and 

 Trade Rpts. [U. S.], n. scr., 1 (1910), No. 3, p. 45).— It is reported that Mexico 

 imports from Spain large quantities of English walnuts, which are used for 

 feeding fighting bulls. 



The house-feeding of sheep, W. Mackay (Trans. Highland and Agr. Soc. 

 Scot., 5. ser., 22 (1910), pp. 27-39, figs. 4).— During a period of 2 months 20 

 sheep made an average gain of 9.3 lbs. each when kept in the open, as compared 

 with a corresponding gain of 14.2 lbs. each when a similar lot was provided with 

 shelter. Descriptions are given of a sheep-feeding shed. 



The pasturage system for handling range sheep, J. T. Jardine ( U. S. Dcpt. 

 Agr., Forest Ser v. Cire. ITS, pp. I/O, pis. If). — A report of investigations during 

 1909 in continuation of work previously noted (E. S. R., 21, p. 775) to determine 

 the efficiency of the pasturage system of handling sheep with a view to the 

 best utilization of grazing land. 



The cost of maintaining S miles of fence for the first year was $20; for the 

 second year, $5. Although proof against coyotes the fence did not always keep 

 out bears or badgers. 



The results obtained with experimental bands of ewes and lambs at liberty 

 within the inclosure were favorable, as in the previous year. The pasture loss 

 was 4 head out of a band of 2,040, less than one-fifth of 1 per cent, while the 

 loss of bands of 2,000 heads on the outside varied from 20 to 60, or from 1 to 3 

 per cent. At the market prices October 1, 1909, this loss was equivalent to $16 

 for the pasture band, compared with $200 for each outside band of the same 

 number. There were several factors which caused the difference in loss. On 

 the outside range small bunches occasionally are cut off from the main band. 

 Some of the sheep are killed by predatory animals before the loss is known. 

 Outside bands lose a few sheep during the day by coyotes and bears in the 

 timber and on the bed ground at night. Other los.ses are due to piliug up tim- 

 ber snags and bruises. In 1908, and again in 1909, every band which grazed on 

 the outside range ad.1oining the pastures sustained a loss from poisonous plants 

 varying from 5 to 40 head. 



The average gains in weight made by the lambs in pasture was 76 lbs. per 

 head, while outside bands averaged from .55 to 67 lbs. per head. It was thought 

 that the wool growth was heavier and cleaner than under customary methods 

 of herding, but sufficient time has not elapsal to secure definite results. The 

 comparison of the broadcast and corral systems of lambing on the open range 

 with the pasture system showed that as good results were stH.Hired under the 

 pasture system as under the other two sys-fems, at a cost not exceeding 16 per 

 cent of the cost of handling under the corral system and perhaps 33 per cent of 

 the average cost of handling under the broadcast system. It is believed that 



