ANIMAL PRODUCTION. 863 



gain; and lot 2, 60S lbs. gain, consuming 3.31 lbs. of barley and 0.35 lb. of 

 tankage per pound of gain. The cost r)er pound of gain in lot 2 was 5.84 cts. 

 The value of skim milk for each pound of gain in lot 1 as comitarod with lot 2 

 was 28.20 cts. 



Two lots of pigs fed a ration of crushed wheat, bran, and tankage. 5:4:1, lot 

 1 being self-fed on dry feed and lot 2 hand-fetl on soaked feed, required per 

 liound of gain 5.12 lbs. and 4. 88 lbs., respectively. In a second trial lot 1 

 consumed 4.18 lbs. of feed and lot 2. 5.37 lbs. of feed per pound of gain. In 

 tliis experiment the self-feeder lot ate more feed daily and gained more rapidly 

 at a small cost of nutrients tlian did the hand-fed lot. 



Two Duroc Jersey sows with 7-day-old ])igs consumed during the time of suck- 

 ling the pigs 1.220 lbs. of a fee<l mixture com])osed of wheat, shorts, and tank- 

 age 5:4:1, while the 15 pigs consumed from April 1 to August 15. 3,436.3 lbs. 

 of the fetxl, representing a total value of $122.68, or 8.74 cts. per pound of 

 live weight of pigs, estimating the birth cost of the pigs to be $3. 



In an experiment to determine the practicability of utilizing cull ewes for 

 the protluction of early market lamb.s, 20 such ewes were fed during the winter 

 in an open yard with a shed, the lambs arriving at irregular intervals. Thir- 

 teen lambs averaging 40 lbs. live weight were sold the first part of April and the 

 .seven remaining 70-lb. lambs were sold the latter part of June. The ewes cost 

 $82.42 and the feed $149.68. After the sale of ewes, lambs, and wool, a loss of 

 $40.59 had been realized. 



One lot of five lambs allowed the run of the entire farm during the winter 

 (December 3 to March 4) and fed in troughs and racks in the open field made 

 an average gain per head of 27.75 lbs., while another lot of six lambs kept in a 

 shed with access to a small outside yard well bedded with straw made an av- 

 erage gain per head of 23.25 lbs. The lambs under shelter did the better during 

 the rainy season, but during good weather the best results were obtained from 

 those outside. 



Comparative efficiency for growth, of the nitrogen of alfalfa hay and corn 

 grain, E. B. Hart, G. C. Humphrey, and F. B. Morrison (Wisconsin Sta. 

 Research Bui. SS (1914). pp. 87-107, figs. //).— After reviewing the work of 

 previous investigators, an account is given of two years' experimental work. 

 The purpose of the experiments was to determine the rate of nitrogen retention 

 by growing heifers when the source of the nitrogen in the ration was mainly 

 either the corn grain or the whole alfalfa plant. 



During 1910-11, two Holstein heifers were fed by the reversal method for 16 

 weeks, one animal receiving 5 lbs. corn meal. 2 lbs. gluten feed, and 7 lbs. corn 

 stover, and the other 3 lbs. corn stover, 5 lbs. alfalfa hay, 3 lbs. alfalfa meal, 

 and 4.2 lbs. starch. 



During 1911-12, two Holstein heifers were fed as before, except that in this 

 case the second heifer in each case received 5 lbs. alfalfa hay, 4 lbs. alfalfa 

 meal, and 5 lbs. starch. The nutritive ratios of the two rations, based on crude 

 digestible protein, were practically the same, but if in the case of the hay the 

 " amid nitrogen " be excluded, then the nutritive ratio becomes 1 : 12.4. The 

 efficiency of the two rations for growth, biised on the nitrogen storage, was 

 essentially the same. 



It is concluded from the results obtained that "on the basis of total nitrogen 

 ingested, the utilization of nitrogen for growth was as eflicient when the source 

 was from alfalfa hay as wheu it came from the corn kernel. With high intake 

 of total digestible crude protein, which in the case of alfalfa includes the amid 

 nitrogen, the storage of nitrogen was essentially alike on the two rations. 



