( 752 
TABLE ILL. 
Date of Quantity of sugar 0, of fat 
R.M.W -numbers. 4 the mile 
. sample- administered 
taking. to N°. 2a.3 N° 7 No 2] Ne 3! N° 1} No 2] No 3 
6 January 30.9 | 28.6 | 24.6 | 3.25 | 4.35 | 3.35 
8 >» ene 32.5 | 97.5 | 24.6 | 3.05 | 3.9 | 2.9 
105 so 31.5 | 27.4 | 25.3 | 3.05 | 3.85 | 3.05 
| Inereasing 
15 » quantities 30.6 | 31.2 | 27.— 3.— | 3.65 | 2.75 
be ae 30.6 | 28.95 26.3 3.35) 3.5 | 2.6 
230% j | 30.4 | 29.4 | 27.65) 3.— | 3.45 | 2.55 
27 » Decreasing 28.3 | 29.9] 99.-| 3.1 | 3.451 2.8 
30 » quantities 29.6 | 31.—| 29.3 | 3.— | 3.75 | 2.85 
aicurdaey, 1.5 and 1 kilo 28.9 | 28.9 | 28.8) 2.9 | 3.7 | 2.9 
In Table IV are recorded, besides some particulars of the cattle, 
the average R.M.W.-numbers and the average percentage of fat in 
the milk of the different periods. 
RAB A5 Me UNE 
R.M.W.-nùmbers. 0/o of Fat 
5 a 
Number Concei- Be in the milk. 
No, Born On ved in a5 Average Average Average | Average 
of 1901. 4901 ds f On from On from 
une EE aS TEL EA E 15 Jan.— 
3 £ : dl 
| = 6-10 Jan. 3 Febr. 6-’0 Jan. 3 Febr. 
4 | Spring 2 27 May| Not 6.5 31.6 | 30.6 | 29.7 | 28.9 | 3.12°/, | 3.06%; 
1898. 
2 | Spring 2 [13 March) Not 5.5 27:8 (31::2/:-29:9r1 28,9 | 403 
1898. 
3 | August 2 2k So Ene June 6.5 24.8 | 27.—| 28.— | 28.8 | 3.1 2.74 
1898. 
From the above-given figures it appears that after 4 days (on 15” 
Jan.) of sugar-feeding, the R.M.W.-numbers of Nes, 2 and 3 had risen 
respectively 3.4 and 2.2, whereas with N°. 1, the controlling-cow, a 
decrease of 1.0 was observed. 
