New YorkK AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. 43 
ration. But in rate of growth Lot I, having the least animal 
food, was considerably behind the others. The growth made by 
Lots II and IV exceeded it by nearly 10 per ct. and that made 
by Lot III by over 15 per ct. 
For the first three weeks of feeding the advantage lay plainly 
with Lot III having the “ 60 per ct. ration.” The food was used 
more efficiently, the cost was as low as with any and growth was 
fastest, being over 40 per ct. faster than for Lot I, about 18 per ct. 
faster than for Lot IJ and 8 per ct. faster than for Lot IV. 
For the first seven weeks of feeding, up to the age of eight 
weeks, the amount’ of water-free food required per pound gain 
was almost exactly the same for three lots and a little higher for 
Lot IV. The food cost of growth varied in the same order as did 
the rations in relation to amount of animal food, but not in the 
same ratio. Growth was most rapid for Lot III and exceeded 
that of Lot I by over 20 per ct., the birds averaging at eight 
weeks about 4.2 pounds weight to about 3.5 pounds for Lot I, 
4.0 pounds for Lot II and 4.1 pounds for Lot IV. 
IN CONCLUSION. 
After the close of the ten weeks’ feeding under the four rations, 
each lot was fed on a more fattening ration, the same for all. 
This consisted of about equal amounts of the mixture “Z” and 
corn meal, with green alfalfa. During the first week under this 
ration the birds of Lot I made a rapid gain at moderate expendi- 
ture of food; about one pound increase for every 3.3 pounds of 
' dry matter in the food, indicating that, while rapid growth had 
been arrested under the experimental ration, attainment of good 
size had been delayed rather than prevented. This has been 
observed under other rations deficient in either nitrogenous or 
mineral matter; although, in general, birds which had suffered 
under the disadvantage of inefficient rations for long, failed to 
develop afterward as well as others. 
At the age of 12 weeks the largest individuals in Lot IV 
weighed over 7.2 pounds, exceeding the largest of Lot I, which 
weighed about 6.1 pounds, by 18 per cent. The largest in Lots II 
and III were intermediate in size, In no lot, however, was 
development noticeably uneven, 
