4 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 



The results of an interesting experiment conducted at the Agricul- 

 tural College at Seal Hayne are reported in the Journal of the Board of 

 Agriculture and Fisheries (England), 1914. In one of the experiments, 

 it is pointed out that the substitution of fish meal for various other foods 

 fed to pigs resulted in increased profits amounting in one series to 42 

 per cent, and in another to 94 per cent, notwithstanding the fact that 

 the ration, was higher in cost.. In another experiment, fish meal was fed 

 to cattle without any hatftifuf results. 



The ration? .of- fish meal of North Sea origin as recommended by 

 several'duthoritieVarei. for.' cattle, 2 Ibs. per 1,000 Ibs. live weight; pigs, 

 $ ft>. per 100 Ibs. live weight; sheep, to \ lb. per 200 Ibs. live weight; 

 while poultry can assimilate a ration containing 10 per cent fish meal. 

 From my own observations over a period of some twenty years, I 

 can testify to its general use in Europe without harm to any of the usual 

 live-stock on the farm. I have, personally, for many years used meals 

 (compounded) for the raising of fish in fish-breeding establishments 

 with the most satisfactory results. 



By far the most important modern contribution to literature on the 

 subject of the use of fish meal as a feed is contained in United States 

 Agricultural Bulletin No. 378, the work of Mr. F. C. Weber, to whom we 

 are greatly indebted. Mr. Weber appears to have collected abundant 

 evidence as to the suitability and economic use of fish meal as a farm 

 live-stock feed. He gives the following as the average analysis of some 

 six meals used in his experiments: 



Per cent 



Water 4.74 



Ash 16.68 



Total nitrogen 9.68 



Protein 60.50 



Fat 14.56 



Crude fibre , 0.61 



Salt 5.78 



In Mr. Weber's conclusion, he statep that he is justified in saying that 

 fish meal 'is a very effective supplement to a grain ration for pigs. 



In this experiment, fish meal was superior to tankage in all 



comparisons.' Dairy cows fed on a ration of fish meal compared with cows 

 fed on a similar ration in which fish meal was replaced by cotton-seed 

 meal, gave a greater yield of milk, but it contained a lower percentage 

 of butter fat. However, the total amount of fat obtained was ap- 

 proximately the same in both cases. 



Mr. I. W. Turrentine, of the United States Bureau of Soils, has, 

 during the last few years, published the results of some interesting and 



