10 



N. H. Agr. Experiment Station 



[Bulletin 312 



cent group (fish meal) had an average production per bird of 121.92 eggs 

 as compared with the 15 per cent mixture, 15 per cent meat scrap and 15 

 ]per cent dried skimmilk groups of 101.07 eggs, 91.88 eggs, and 38.70 

 eggs, respectively. 



A similar relationship is observed when comparing the 17 per cent 

 ]")rotein groups with but one exception. In this instance the 17 per cent 

 mixture group outlayed all others with an average production of 174.13 

 eggs. The 17 per cent fish meal, meat scrap, and dried skimmilk groups 

 followed in the order named with 152.54 eggs, 61.38 eggs, and 35.90 eggs. 



In a comparison of average production per bird for the 19 per cent 

 protein groups we note the fish meal group as leader with 167.11 eggs 

 per bird as compared with the 151.51 eggs for the mixture group, 42.40 

 eggs for the meat scrap group, and 24.70 eggs per bird in the group 

 receiving dried skimmilk. Based on an average production figure the 

 fish meal groups produced at the highest rate with the mixture, meat 

 scrap and dried skimmilk groups following in the order named. 



Table VII also presents a definite cost comparison of the different 

 rations used as well as the computed feed cost per dozen eggs produced 

 by each group. It will be noted that as the protein content of ration is 

 increased, the cost per pound of this feed is increased. If the feed cost 

 per dozen eggs produced is increased with each increase in protein con- 

 tent, it then appears doubtful if such an increase is worthwhile or 

 advantageous. By referring to Table VII and considering figures appli- 

 cable only to Test I, one can see that each advance in protein from the 

 meat and milk sources caused an increase in the feed cost per dozen eggs 

 produced. In the case of the mixed protein groups there was a decided 

 drop in feed cost per dozen eggs as protein content was increased from 15 

 per cent to 17 per cent. An approximate saving of seven cents per 

 dozen is noted. With an additional two per cent increase in protein 

 content, feed cost per dozen jumps approximately two cents over that 

 for the 17 per cent protein group. A similar comparison of the groups 

 fed fish meal as the animal protein source indicates a definite reduction 

 in cost as the protein content increases. All three groups, however, are 

 relatively close and show little spread in feed cost between lowest and 



Table IV-b. Summary of feed consumption records in pounds per chick 

 for dried skim " .ii'I jrnt. in mixture groups 



